Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministerial Statement

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

14 April 2026 · 13 other contributors

Opened by Nick Thomas-Symonds Lab Torfaen

NHS

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Nick Thomas-Symonds raised concerns about infected blood compensation scheme in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • The Minister updated the House on the Government's response to recommendations from the infected blood inquiry's additional report.
  • As of 7 April, 3,273 people have received offers and over 2 billion has been paid out through the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA).
  • The Minister announced changes to the compensation scheme based on a public consultation, including increasing core and supplementary compensation awards.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Government Statement

Nick Thomas-Symonds

The Minister updated the House on the Government’s response to recommendations from the infected blood inquiry's additional report. As of 7 April, 3,273 people have received offers and over £2 billion has been paid out through the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA). The Minister announced changes to the compensation scheme based on a public consultation, including increasing core and supplementary compensation awards for infected and affected individuals. These changes include backdating certain awards to 2017 when the special category mechanism was first introduced, providing additional compensation for mental health issues, adjusting severity bandings for interferon treatment, removing deductions for past care compensation, considering forms of evidence beyond earnings records, and increasing core injury awards for bereaved parents and siblings affected under age 18. The Minister also announced a new unethical research award and increased existing ones, along with an enhanced autonomy award for those infected before age 18. A mechanism is being launched to allow victims to raise concerns about the scheme's design and delivery.

Other contributors (13)
  • Mike Wood Con Dudley South

    Question

    Will the Minister reassure the House that delays in impl [4D [K implementing these changes will not cause further distress for victims? Whe [3D [K When can recipients expect new level 2B severity awards and backdated SCM p [1D [K payments? Will increased core injury awards apply to parents of children in [2D [K infected before turning 18 but died post-18? How does the 'clear potential' [10D [K potential' definition avoid lengthy assessments?

    Minister reply

    The Minister assured that further delays will be [K avoided. Specific deadlines for new level 2B severity awards and backdated [K SCM payments are forthcoming in July's feedback summaries. Increased core i [1D [K injury awards apply to all bereaved parents regardless of their child’s age [3D [K age at death. The 'clear potential' definition aims to minimize bureaucrati [11D [K bureaucratic hurdles, avoiding lengthy assessments.

  • Mike Wood Con Dudley South

    Question

    Will the removal of 25% deduction for past care compensa [8D [K compensation be automatically applied to existing offers or require reappli [7D [K reapplication?

    Minister reply

    The Minister clarified that those who have alread [6D [K already received offers need not reapply; adjustments will be made automati [8D [K automatically based on whichever calculation is more financially beneficial [10D [K beneficial.

  • Mike Wood Con Dudley South

    Question

    The shadow Minister acknowledged progress but expressed [K concerns over delays in legislative implementation, the need for clear time [4D [K timelines regarding new awards and payments, and sought clarification on ad [2D [K adjustments to existing offers based on new provisions. He also questioned [K the closure of the public inquiry and its impact on policy certainty.

    Minister reply

    The Minister responded by emphasising that legisl [6D [K legislation will be brought forward as soon as possible with a collaborativ [12D [K collaborative spirit from all parties. He clarified that the £60,000 lump s [1D [K sum is not an individualised assessment but rather looks at loss of chance [K for higher earnings due to infection. The Minister promised a written respo [5D [K response addressing more detailed questions.

  • Charlotte Nichols

    Question

    The MP questioned whether today’s announcement properly [K recognises the disproportionate harm caused to people co-infected with HIV [K and hepatitis C, who make up around 14% of those receiving special category [8D [K category support.

    Minister reply

    The Minister acknowledged that the compensation s [1D [K scheme seeks to recognise all harms but emphasised that it is a tariff-base [11D [K tariff-based scheme designed for broad justice rather than individualised s [1D [K searches for evidence.

  • Lisa Smart

    Question

    The MP thanked the Minister and welcomed recognition of [K individual experiences. She raised concerns about transparency, communicati [11D [K communication with victims, and the need to enshrine a statutory duty of ca [2D [K candour as recommended by Sir Brian Langstaff.

    Minister reply

    The Minister explained that the feedback mechanis [8D [K mechanism aims to sift queries effectively, noting existing user consultant [10D [K consultants providing victim voices and advocating for ongoing transparency [12D [K transparency. He confirmed commitment to delivering the Hillsborough law.

  • Clive Efford Lab Eltham

    Question

    I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sir Bri [3D [K Brian Langstaff and the people who gave evidence to his inquiry, which made [4D [K made his report powerful. I thank my right hon. Friend for engaging with th [2D [K this process in a short time. The devil is in the detail of the statement b [1D [K but I welcome news that requirements for evidence will be reduced where it [K has been produced before. Does he agree that creating a new mechanism to li [2D [K listen continuously as the process goes on will help avoid disagreements we [2D [K we have had in the past?

    Minister reply

    I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his wor [3D [K work with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated [12D [K contaminated blood. He is absolutely right about the new feedback mechanism [9D [K mechanism which is important not only that victims feel their voice can be [K heard but that they have a specific process whereby concerns are raised and [3D [K and elevated to the appropriate person.

  • Robbie Moore

    Question

    I pay tribute again to my constituent Clive Smith, who i [1D [K is president of the Haemophilia Society. I am pleased to hear the Minister [K mention Treloar’s school in Hampshire where at least 72 children died after [5D [K after being given a drug contaminated with HIV and viral hepatitis. Can the [3D [K the Minister update the House on progress pursuing criminal charges against [7D [K against those involved in experimenting on children?

    Minister reply

    I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Cl [2D [K Clive Smith for his excellent work on memorialisation. The heinous activiti [8D [K activities that happened at Treloar’s school, where vulnerable children wer [3D [K were subjected to chilling medical experimentation, will be pursued as quic [4D [K quickly as possible while ensuring we learn lessons to prevent this from ha [2D [K happening again.

  • Ben Lake PC Ceredigion

    Question

    I thank the Minister for his work and commitment. Can I [K ask him for clarification on the level 2B severity category and the increas [7D [K increase for those who were infected when they were younger than 18? Will t [1D [K these new mechanisms be adjusted automatically for existing claims, or will [4D [K will claimants need to apply?

    Minister reply

    I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks an [2D [K and support. Where there is an impact on existing claims, the intention is [K to make it as easy as possible without repeatedly asking people to produce [K different pieces of evidence.

  • Ian Sollom

    Question

    I welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to [2D [K to updating the House regularly. However, my constituent was infected with [K hepatitis C in 1993 and is still yet to receive support because of the sche [4D [K scheme’s original cut-off date. Can he reassure my constituent that there w [1D [K will be renewed urgency on this particular cohort?

    Minister reply

    First IBCA has published a prioritisation list wh [2D [K which they are moving through based on their rationale. Given that this sca [3D [K scandal happened over decades, there is obviously an urgency to get payment [7D [K payments to people as quickly as possible.

  • Iqbal Mohamed

    Question

    My constituent met me last year and spoke about her late [4D [K late brother who tragically died in 1988 after being infected with contamin [8D [K contaminated blood. Her family applied to the compensation scheme in June 2 [1D [K 2024, yet they feel that they are treated as a lower priority because he is [2D [K is no longer alive. Can the Minister explain why bereaved families like her [3D [K hers are effectively asked to wait longer? Will he meet me to discuss this [K particular case and how delays can be alleviated?

    Minister reply

    First, the intention is certainly not to produce [K any form of two-tier scheme; it is to compensate everybody for harm they ha [2D [K have suffered. If the hon. Gentleman would write to me with individual circ [4D [K circumstances, I can look specifically at what has happened in that case.

  • Clive Jones

    Question

    I thank the Minister for his update and join others in t [1D [K thanking him. My constituent was one of 30,000 people affected by this scan [4D [K scandal. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority should have been life-ch [7D [K life-changing but my constituent felt they had to accept an offer that was [K not good enough due to duress. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent [11D [K constituent to discuss this case?

    Minister reply

    One of the reasons I signed off funding for both [K financial advice and legal advice is precisely to ensure people could acces [5D [K access it when receiving offers of compensation, but if the hon. Gentleman [K would write to me with circumstances, I can certainly look into it.

  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    Question

    The Minister’s diligence and energy is much valued by my [2D [K my constituents and all Members present. Can he confirm that people will be [2D [K be able to make claims under the mental health support section, as loss of [K a parent can be devastating in the long term?

    Minister reply

    I am grateful for the hon. Member's generous comm [4D [K comments. On that particular issue, I would be grateful if he wrote to me w [1D [K with specific details so we could see whether the claim is eligible.

Shadow Comment

Mike Wood

The shadow welcomed progress in compensation payments but raised questions regarding delays, legislative timetable, quarterly feedback summaries, core injury awards justification, clarity on 'clear potential', application of 25% deduction removal to existing offers, and the status of the public inquiry. The shadow commended specific increases to unethical research awards and highlighted concerns over bureaucratic hurdles that could delay further compensation.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy