PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme - 14 April 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I will update the House on the Government’s response to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry’s additional report.

I will start by updating the House on the delivery of compensation by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—or IBCA, as we refer to it. As of 7 April, 3,273 people have received an offer and over £2 billion has now been paid out. That includes the first payments to all eligible groups. I am sure that Members across the whole House will welcome that progress.

In July last year, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made recommendations for both the Government and IBCA. Part of our response to that report was a public consultation on changes to the infected blood compensation scheme. I am here today to update the House on the outcome of that consultation. First, I should say that I am deeply grateful to everyone who responded and provided deeply personal stories. They must be at the heart of the decisions that the Government make, just as they were throughout the work of the inquiry.

The consultation was vital for engaging the community on our proposals. The Government have also sought advice from the infected blood compensation scheme technical expert group. Alongside the consultation response, today I am publishing the group’s final report, which sets out its advice to the Government and amendments to the compensation scheme. To inform that advice, the technical expert group conducted roundtable discussions with community representatives on specific aspects of the scheme, and that was separate to the consultation. For transparency, I am also publishing the minutes of the roundtable discussions, the group’s own meetings and a summary of written responses to the roundtables.

Let me turn to the changes to the scheme. Today the Government have published our full response to the consultation, and that sets out how the scheme will now change. Before I lay out each change in detail, let me explain the overall package. The community was clear that the scheme must do more to recognise people’s individual experiences and compensate them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed on those who have been harmed, minimises the demand for evidence and maintains the delivery of tariff-based compensation. Those requirements underpin the changes.

For infected people, the changes will increase the amount of core compensation available and increase the options available for supplementary compensation awards. For affected people, additional core compensation will be available to those eligible. We consulted on seven specific areas, and we are making substantive changes in all seven. In four areas, we are actually going further than our original proposal.

Let me turn first to the special category mechanism. We will introduce a new supplementary award to give additional compensation to people who have been assessed as eligible for the SCM or who can now demonstrate to IBCA that they meet the criteria. After considering the community’s views, we will ensure that every eligible person has this award backdated to 2017, because that is when the special category mechanism was first introduced.

Many of those infected suffered from terrible mental health issues as a result of their infection, as we heard in their testimonies. We will amend the scheme so that the new SCM supplementary award gives people additional compensation where the psychological harm that they experienced means that the core route compensation simply does not go far enough. We believe that this will result in more comprehensive recognition of the mental health issues caused by infected blood and the resulting years of harm.

The inquiry recommended that we change the core route’s severity bandings to recognise the harms caused to infected people by interferon treatment, and proposed a new “level 2B” severity banding for those who receive this treatment. We accept that change is necessary, and we will introduce this new severity band to increase people’s injury, financial loss and care awards. In addition, if someone has had multiple rounds of interferon treatment, they will be compensated for each round.

The inquiry recommended changes to the calculation of past financial loss and past care awards for those who choose to continue receiving support scheme payments. We will remove the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation, as was recommended by the inquiry. The consultation also set out two options for how financial loss could be calculated for those who continue to receive support scheme payments: the way the scheme currently does it, and an alternative. Because of the range of views on which was best, we will ensure that people receive past financial loss compensation based on whichever of the two calculations presented is most financially beneficial for them.

The inquiry asked the Government to look at the evidence requirements for the exceptional loss award. We were keen to hear the community’s views on that in order to develop a way forward that avoided lengthy, individualised assessments of people’s circumstances. We will ensure that all forms of evidence of actual earnings can be considered by IBCA. We will also make additional compensation available to infected people who lack evidence of earnings but who had clear potential to earn more than average. We will offer a £60,000 lump sum on top of people’s core awards to those who can show they either had a job offer or recently started a job where the salary was higher than the median salary but had their progress impeded by their infection.

Through the consultation, we also heard about the experiences of affected people and the particular harms they suffered. We will increase the core injury award for several groups of affected people, including bereaved parents whose child sadly died before they turned 18, bereaved partners, and children and siblings affected under the age of 18. Those changes will give more compensation to affected people whose particular experience of the scandal was undoubtedly profound and deeply harmful. The awards will form part of the core award, and they will not require additional evidence from applicants.

I know that the matter of unethical research is of particular concern to Members across the House. It is one of the most shocking aspects of the scandal. We heard that the existing approach may not have compensated everyone who suffered that wrongdoing. We have therefore changed the scope of the award so that anyone treated in the UK for a bleeding disorder in 1985 or earlier will receive further compensation.

It was also clear from the consultation responses that the amount offered does not reflect the harm done. I say today to the House that we will increase the unethical research awards. That includes increasing the £25,000 for those who attended Treloar’s school to £60,000 as well as introducing a new unethical research award for those treated elsewhere for a bleeding disorder during childhood at a rate of £45,000. We are also tripling the award for those treated for a bleeding disorder in adulthood to £30,000. I have touched on all seven of the areas we directly addressed in the consultation; of course, I encourage hon. Members across the House to read the full response that is being published.

The consultation also invited respondents to raise any other concerns they had about the design of the scheme. One of the most compelling things we heard was that the scheme does not sufficiently recognise the profound impact of infection during childhood. We have heard the community clearly on that, so we will make a further change to the compensation scheme to address it: we will introduce a 50% increase to the core autonomy award for people who were infected at age 18 or under.Official Report, 25 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 2WC. (Correction).

I hope those changes go some way to showing our commitment to listening to the community and making decisions, with those impacted at the forefront of our minds. In order to make those substantial changes to the scheme, we will bring forward further legislation in due course.

While the consultation provided one way for the community to offer feedback, the inquiry recommended there be an identified way for concerns to be considered. Today, I am pleased to launch a new mechanism that builds on existing engagement and feedback channels through which people can raise concerns about the function of the infected blood compensation scheme with the Cabinet Office and with IBCA. Both organisations will then publish quarterly summaries of feedback received on the scheme’s design and delivery, and any action being taken as a result. I expect the first of those summaries to be published in early July.

The findings of the inquiry must be met with tangible, systemic change. I hope that what I have set out goes some way towards showing our commitment to enacting this change. I pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff, his team and everyone who gave testimony to the inquiry for ensuring that that human element of this tragedy remains a focal point of the inquiry’s work.

The compensation scheme’s most basic purpose is to provide financial recognition of the losses and harms faced by victims, both infected and affected. Beyond that, it must reflect and embody their stories if it is to truly deliver justice, not just for those we tragically lost, but for those who continue to fight. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing an advance copy. We naturally welcome the progress reported today. The fact that 3,273 people have received offers totalling more than £2 billion is a significant milestone in a decades-long struggle for justice. I thank the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for its work to speed up the payments.

As Baroness Finn said in the other place,

“what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2025; Vol. 849, c. 1821.]

Nowhere was that more egregious or more shocking than in those cases where victims were infected as a result of deliberate experimentation in the name of science. We therefore commend the Minister for the specific increases to the unethical research awards, and in particular the uplift to £60,000 for the survivors of Treloar’s school and the expansion of the scheme to include those treated as adults. Those are necessary recognitions of a truly outrageous chapter of the scandal.

However, while the Minister spoke of tangible, systemic change, many victims and their families will be looking at the fine print with a degree of trepidation. I therefore have a number of questions regarding the delivery and scope of these announcements. The Minister noted that further legislation will be required later this year to enact these substantial changes. Given that the infected blood inquiry’s additional report was published back in July last year, will he reassure the House that the legislative timetable will not lead to further agonising delays for those in declining health? Will the first quarterly feedback summaries, which he has promised will come in July, provide a hard deadline for when those new level 2B severity awards and backdated supply chain management payments will actually reach bank accounts? If not, does he have an expectation of when those payments will be made?

I think the Minister mentioned increased core injury awards for bereaved parents whose children died before the age of 18. Can he provide greater clarity on the justification for excluding parents whose children were infected when they were young children but turned 18 before the time of their death? Regarding the 50% increase to the core autonomy award for those infected at age 18 or under, will he confirm that that will also apply to those infected through their mothers in utero?

The Government rightly aim to minimise the administrative burden and the demand for evidence. We welcome the £60,000 lump sum for those with clear potential to earn but who lack evidence of earnings, but how will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority define “clear potential” without falling back into the lengthy, individualised assessments that the Minister says he wants to avoid?

Finally on the compensation scheme, the Minister announced that for past financial loss, the Government will use whichever calculation is “most financially beneficial” for the recipient. We welcome that pragmatic step, but can he clarify whether the removal of the 25% deduction for past care will be applied automatically to all existing offers, or will those people who have already received offers need to reapply to have their awards adjusted? As the Minister said, the compensation scheme must “embody their stories”. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we must ensure that the new supplementary awards do not become a secondary bureaucratic hurdle for a community that has already given so much testimony and waited so long.

Before I close, I turn to a matter that seems to be missing from the Minister’s statement: the inquiry. When he last updated the House before Christmas, I raised the need to

“move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 516.]

I also asked him how and when the inquiry might be drawn to a close so there could be a degree of policy certainty. I did not hear him refer to that in his statement, so will he confirm that, with the implementation of the key recommendations from the additional report and Sir Brian’s letters, the public inquiry has now drawn to a close?

Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their diligent and comprehensive work over the past eight years to help deliver some justice after decades of scandal and suffering. Most of all, I again pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the many victims and their families who were infected or affected by the infected blood scandal. They have suffered for far too long in ways that we can barely begin to imagine, and no compensation scheme can ever reverse the horrific harms needlessly done to them. I hope, however, that the universal acceptance of the conclusion of the reports and the determination of us all to do what we can to make changes that will stop others suffering in future will bring them some comfort.

I thank the shadow Minister for the tone that he took in that response and for the supportive tone that he has taken throughout. I will pick up on some of his earlier points. I agree with him entirely when he talks of the heinous nature of the medical experimentation on children that happened during this scandal. Although I have increased the specific amounts, it should be pointed out that those amounts do not stand in isolation; they are specific amounts for the particularly egregious nature of what happened, which are within much higher settlements, and that is exactly as it should be.

On the point about the inquiry, yes, there has now been the formal exchange of letters between me as the responsible Minister and Sir Brian Langstaff. Also, I entirely agree with the shadow Minister about the need for policy certainty going forward. He asked some very reasonable, detailed questions, and I will come back to him properly in writing on those, but let me just deal with a few of them.

I want to bring forward further legislation as soon as possible. When I have brought forward legislation in the past, parties across the House have always worked in a collaborative way throughout to get it through as quickly as possible. Obviously, positions are a matter for the Opposition parties, but continuing that constructive spirit is helpful in getting these things through as quickly as possible.

On the issue of exceptional loss, again, that £60,000, as referred to by the shadow Minister, is not designed to be a very detailed, individualised assessment. That is not what a tariff-based scheme is meant to do. Rather, it is meant to look at the situation of loss of a chance—the situation where somebody, but for their infection or how they were affected by the infection, would have had the opportunity to have gone on and perhaps been a higher-than-average earner but were denied that—and is designed specifically to look at that. On the other very reasonable and detailed matters that the hon. Gentleman raises, I will ensure he gets a full written response.

Whether it is in relation to the co-infected, to whom my hon. Friend so movingly refers, or other people who are both infected and affected by this scandal, the compensation scheme seeks to recognise everything—all the harms that have happened to them and how they have suffered. I will just say, though, that this was always meant to be a tariff-based scheme—it is meant to produce broad justice—and part of the reason for that is to try to prevent those highly individualised searches for evidence which, frankly, with this distance of time, would simply not be possible.

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I especially welcome in his remarks the recognition of people’s individual experiences and the commitment to compensating them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed upon those who have been harmed.

The infected blood scandal is one of the greatest failures in our national health service, which was unacknowledged for far too long. Over 30,000 people were infected across the country and faced the devastating consequences of that systematic failure. Yet there are people who continue to feel that the scheme has not gone far enough, including one of my constituents, from Marple, who feels the scheme should investigate more potential conditions.

Thousands of victims and their families have waited decades for the justice they deserve. Sir Brian Langstaff was straightforward in his findings: victims have been ignored and frozen out of the process they fought for decades to secure, while payments have proceeded at an infuriatingly glacial pace. The Liberal Democrats have long stood with the victims. The Government are right to seek to answer the needs of those infected and affected by setting out a clear timeline for how compensation can be delivered to them. My colleagues and I will continue to hold this Government to account until every eligible person receives the justice they are owed.

Sir Brian Langstaff rightly highlighted how victims have not been listened to by successive Ministers, and we welcome the new feedback mechanism that the Minister has set out today. Will he expand a little on his remarks and confirm that that will be a formal advisory body of victims to IBCA, as recommended by the Langstaff inquiry?

After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government should ensure full transparency over the progress of the scheme and open ongoing communication with all those affected. Enshrining a statutory duty of candour is a long-overdue reform championed by those infected and affected by the scandal, and the continued delays to passing the Hillsborough law are shameful. Victims and campaigners should not be made to wait any longer, so will the Minister say when the Government will get that vital piece of legislation moving again and finally get the Hillsborough law on the statute book?

First, in respect of the feedback mechanism, I wanted it to be not simply somewhere that would receive correspondence, but a proper mechanism to sift the various queries coming in. Some might be administrative things to do with the scheme that might be dealt with relatively quickly and some might be more serious things that need to be elevated either to IBCA’s board or to the Cabinet Office.

Secondly, with regard to IBCA and the voice of victims, I have been on more than one occasion to IBCA’s offices in Newcastle. It already has what are known as the user consultants, who provide the voice of the community on the premises and who have been encouraged by Sir Robert Francis to do that. I think they make a very important contribution. Thirdly, on transparency, I could not agree more. That is why, on the technical expert group for example, I take the view of publishing everything. I think we have to continue to do that. Fourthly, on the issue of the Hillsborough law, work is ongoing. I have been very involved in that in recent months and, certainly, we are committed to delivering it.

I really welcome the statement from the Minister, along with the changes and improvements that the Government are making to the scheme, but for many people infected by HIV in the 1980s, fear, stigma and poor health meant that the role of parents, as in the case of my constituents, did not meaningfully change after their child turned 18. Will the Minister please consider adding an enhanced core injury payment for parents whose children died over the age of 18 but who had no partner or children of their own?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak of those people who were infected with HIV in the period that she talks about and the terrible social stigma, alongside everything else that they suffered. Indeed, I sincerely hope that the scheme reflects that. On the second, very specific question that she raises, if she could send me the details of her constituents, I will come back to her on that particular case.

Over the past 21 months, the Minister has worked tirelessly to try to build on the consensus across the House on the legislation that I put through on 21 May 2024 in order to make the scheme work, and I pay tribute to the work he has done. He has listened carefully to a whole range of inputs on an extremely complicated problem from a heterogeneous group of individuals, and he has done his level best to respond to the advice and best judgment of professionals, to attend to the range of needs and oversights, and to create pathways. I pay tribute to the work that he has done. He assured the House repeatedly that the money would get out as quickly as possible, and it did get out quickly and move swiftly after that initial process had been resolved. However, given that it cost over £150 million for the public inquiry, let alone the several billions of pounds for the compensation, will he ensure that the proper lessons are learned by the British state, so that not only can such a scandal never happen again but the conduct of public inquiries is as efficient as possible and we can reduce the delays that may have occurred in this situation?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous tribute. I have built on the work that he did as a Minister, and I think that the consensus between us, when I was in opposition and now as I am in government, has helped the victims and speeded up the process. I am very grateful for all the work that he did. His second point was very well made. We have to look at the public inquiries landscape. We all recognise that public inquiries provide a real public sense of justice when people have suffered either from a scandal or, frankly, from a cover-up by the state, but we want public inquiries to provide value for money for the taxpayer and to report in a timely fashion. We also need them to make relevant, timely policy recommendations. I am determined to look at that.

I thank the Minister for the contents of his statement and for the diligence of his work with Sir Brian Langstaff and the victims to ensure that the inquiry’s recommendations have been delivered. Noting the incredible damage that has been done to many of our constituents’ lives as they try to return to normality, may I ask the Minister to outline further how we will ensure that the community’s voice will continue to be heard, bearing in mind that the challenges caused by this injustice will not suddenly stop, even if those people are awarded compensation?

My hon. Friend highlights a really important point. This is why the feedback mechanism is so important in ensuring that, where there are issues, they are treated sensitively and with the seriousness they deserve, and that they are elevated to the appropriate place, whether that is IBCA’s board or the Cabinet Office, to be dealt with.

I pay tribute to the Minister and his team for the great work that they have done. I agree with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that this work is really cross-party, and the Minister will continue to enjoy our support in the future. I would like to raise two matters of detail. One relates to the Hepatitis C Trust, which has welcomed the funding that it has received, but it is only for one year. Owing to the nature of its work and the fact that these cases are likely to go on for several years, will the Minister confirm that organisations such as the Hepatitis C Trust can expect to enjoy funding in future years to enable them to continue to provide support?

I also welcome the Minister’s comments on the new level 2B severity banding for people who received interferon treatment, but I would like to raise a couple of points of detail on that. The Minister might not be able to answer them today, but if he could answer them in writing, that would be helpful. Do these new measures remove the 2017 reduction in rates for compensation, and will they ensure that people are fairly compensated for health harms caused by interferon treatment from the date those harms occurred?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his party for the tone that they have taken throughout this process, and I welcome the opportunity to continue to work on a cross-party basis, because that is important. Like him, I have had that discussion with the charities—including the Hepatitis C Trust, as it happens—and I very much understand the case they make about multi-year funding as opposed to single-year funding. The funding comes from the Department of Health and Social Care, rather than from me, but I will certainly write to the relevant Minister to raise that point. The introduction of level 2B banding for interferon treatment is important, because of the specific, awful effects of multiple rounds of interferon treatment. On the two points that the hon. Gentleman has specifically raised, I will ensure that he gets a detailed answer in writing.

I commend the bravery of the constituents I have met who have endured decades of anguish as a result of this harrowing chapter in our country’s medical history. The Minister will know that there are those across the country with legitimate claims under this scheme, but because some NHS trusts are claiming that their loved ones’ medical records have been destroyed, those affected are still having to fight for recognition and compensation. Will he address how we can overcome this seemingly insurmountable obstacle and give my constituents the closure and compassion that they deserve?

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. An issue with this scandal is that, due to the passage of time, evidence will simply not be available. Also, the inquiry found evidence of deliberate document destruction. That is why, while of course I entirely respect IBCA’s independence, I have always said that a sympathetic approach needs to be taken to evidence in that particular context. Indeed, from conversations I have had with Sir Robert Francis and others at IBCA, I know that that is precisely the approach they are seeking to take.

I, too, want to recognise the Minister’s commitment to this cause, which has impacted on so many of us across the House. I have a number of technical questions. First, he says that he wants to bring legislation forward this year. As he knows, delay matters, and the estimate is that one affected person is dying every four days. Can he confirm that the legislation will happen this side of the summer? Secondly, if the legislation is required to change the claim amounts, from when will they be dated? Thirdly, can he confirm that if the small number of claims that have been concluded already were eligible for the increased awards, they could be reopened so that more money may flow to those victims?

On the right hon. Gentleman’s third question, the answer is yes. His second question related to dates. There are some specific dates that exist in the scheme. For example, assessment for the special category mechanism started in 2017, so that is the date that exists in relevant cases. Finally, I want to bring forward the regulations—this will be the fourth set of regulations—as soon as I possibly can. When I do so, I very much hope that we can collectively deal with them as quickly as possible.

I want to join Members across the House in commending the Minister for his steadfast commitment to this issue and, in particular, for the way in which he has consistently listened to members of the community and acted on what they have said. My constituent, Alex Robinson, lost her father to the scandal in 2006. I spoke to her just a few moments ago on the phone, and she remains concerned by the speed at which applications are being processed. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to speed up the process and deliver the justice that Alex and so many others deserve?

My hon. Friend’s constituent is entirely right to continue to hold the Government to account on the speed of delivery of the compensation. Particular targets were put in place, including paying the first affected person by the end of last year, and we met that target. On infected people, we have now paid out over £2 billion in compensation. To answer his specific point on how we will continue to ensure that we process the payments at speed, while IBCA is of course operationally independent, I always stand ready as the responsible Minister to assist IBCA in any way that it sees fit. I can assure my hon. Friend that my dialogue with IBCA on this point will continue.

I, too, acknowledge the work the Minister has done on this issue. Last year, I asked him about a constituent who fell under the special category mechanism, so it is welcome news that there will be an additional award for that group, but those affected are frustrated that it has taken this long to get here. The scheme so far, for the vast majority of victims, has been a failure, and only a fraction of those affected have yet received compensation. Is the Minister confident that all those eligible, including those eligible for additional awards from the special category mechanism, will have received payment by the end of 2029?

I should say that 2029 is a backstop not a target, so it is not a question of my being confident about that date; I want the payments to have been made before 2029. On the hon. Member’s more general point about speeding up payments, IBCA has used a “test and learn” approach for infected people. The reason for that was to have a small number of representative cases, so that there could be an accelerating point at which the number of cases being paid would increase sharply. That did happen and I would say, as the Minister, that we are now up to over £2 billion having been paid, but he is absolutely right to continue to hold me to account on the speed of payments.

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff who leads the inquiry and the people who gave evidence to it, which made his report so powerful, as my right hon. Friend said. I thank my right hon. Friend for the way he has engaged with this process in the short time he was been in office. It has moved things on immeasurably from where we were before, albeit building on the work that was done before.

My right hon. Friend knows how complex this issue is, so the devil will be in the detail of the statement, but I welcome the news that the requirements for evidence will be reduced where people have already produced evidence and gone through previous thresholds, and are then required to provide it again when it is not available. Mistrust inevitably exists for people who have had to campaign for so long for justice from the state, so I welcome the fact that he is creating a new mechanism to listen to the community continuously as the process goes on. Does he agree that taking that way forward will help to avoid the disagreements we have had in the past?

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his work with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which I was pleased to attend and speak to in recent weeks. He is absolutely right about the new feedback mechanism. It is so important not only that victims feel that their voice can be heard, but that they have a specific process whereby they can raise those concerns and then be elevated to the appropriate person to respond to them. That will be hugely important going forward.

I, too, welcome the statement from the Minister. I pay tribute once again to my constituent Clive Smith, who is the president of the Haemophilia Society, on all the work he has done to press previous Governments and this Government on behalf of those affected and infected.

I am pleased to hear the Minister make specific reference to Treloar’s school in Hampshire, where at least 72 children died after being given a drug contaminated with HIV and viral hepatitis. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have a particular interest because your constituent Mike Webster’s son, Gary Webster, was infected. Can the Minister update the House on what progress is being made in pursuing criminal charges against those involved in experimenting on children?

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Clive Smith for his excellent and continuing work on memorialisation in particular, for which I am very grateful.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the heinous activities that happened at Treloar’s school, which was a place that parents sent their children—vulnerable children—for protection, and then had this truly chilling medical experimentation that happened. We will ensure that things move as quickly as possible, but I also say to the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that we learn the lessons of what happened there to ensure that something like that never happens again.

I join others in paying tribute to the Minister for his work on this matter and on the Government’s response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. I also thank him for his intention to ensure that the administrative burden placed on those infected and affected is limited as much as possible. With that in mind, can I ask him for clarification on the level 2B severity category and the increase for those who were infected when they were younger than 18? Will those new mechanisms be adjusted automatically for existing claims, or will claimants need to apply or work in another way to get those mechanisms applied to their cases?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his support and that of his party, which has been helpful throughout this process. On existing claims where there has been a change, the objective is to make the process as easy as possible, because I do not want to go back to the situation where people are being asked repeatedly to produce different pieces of evidence. Where there is an impact on an existing claim, the intention is absolutely to make it as easy as it can be.

I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to updating the House regularly on this issue. However, my constituent was infected with hepatitis C in 1993 and is still yet to receive any support because of the scheme’s original cut-off date. I know that the strict cut-off dates have been relaxed, but her cohort of the infected but never compensated—and, in some cases, never registered—still seem to be at the back of the queue. That compounds the harm and the feeling that they have been shut out for so long. Can he reassure my constituent that there will be renewed urgency on that particular cohort?

First, IBCA has published a prioritisation list. It published the rationale for that and is obviously moving through that list on the basis of that prioritisation. Given that this scandal happened over decades, there is obviously an urgency—it is shared by IBCA, me and the Government more widely—to get those payments to people as quickly as possible, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.

I join Members across the House in paying tribute to the Minister for his work and the previous Government who started the compensation scheme. My constituent met me at a surgery last year and spoke to me about her late brother, who tragically died in 1988 after being infected with contaminated blood as a haemophiliac. Her family applied to the compensation scheme in June 2024, yet they feel that they are being treated as a lower priority because he is no longer alive. Can the Minister explain why bereaved families like hers are effectively being asked to wait longer? How can this two-tier form of justice be justified to those who have already waited for decades? Will he meet me to discuss this particular case and how the delays to compensation for my constituent can be alleviated?

First, the intention is certainly not to produce any form of two-tier scheme; it is to compensate everybody for the harm they have suffered. On the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, I would greatly appreciate it if he would write to me with the particular individual circumstances and then I can look specifically at what has happened in that case.

I join others in thanking the Minister for his update. I met a constituent in Wokingham last year who was one of the 30,000 people affected by this scandal. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority should have been life-changing for them and others affected by the scandal, but when an offer of compensation was made, my constituent felt that they had to accept it, although they felt it was not good enough, and that they were under duress. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to discuss this case and the fact that my constituent felt pressurised to accept the offer?

One of the reasons I signed off funding for both financial advice and legal advice was precisely to ensure that, in a situation where an offer of compensation was received, people could access it. Obviously, I do not know whether that opportunity was taken in that particular case, but if the hon. Gentleman would write to me with the circumstances, I can certainly look into it.

The Minister is indeed a bearer of good news, and I thank him for his diligence, energy and commitment to delivery. His and his team’s hard work is much valued by my constituents and by all Members present. He has made a full statement on the changes that will be implemented. I note the greater support for children under 18 years of age and for bereaved families in particular. Can he confirm that those people will be able to make claims under the mental health support section, as the loss of a parent can be devastating in the long term?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his generous comments. On that particular issue, I would be grateful if he wrote to me with the very specific details. I would be more than happy to see whether the claim is eligible.

In an earlier question, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) asked about the potential for criminal prosecutions relating to this matter. Of course, prosecutions are a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service, but I have made it absolutely clear that the Government stand ready to provide any evidence required by the authorities.