Nick Thomas-Symonds

It depends on the nature of the change. For example, on the issue being described as burden of proof, I have already repeatedly mentioned from the Dispatch Box the sympathetic approach that I expect. It depends on the specific issue being raised. In some cases, they will be things that I expect IBCA’s board, rather than me as a Minister, to deal with. The point is that I want the issue raised to go to the appropriate level to ensure that it has an appropriate response. We will see how the mechanism works, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, through the all-party parliamentary group, will start to see people having experience of it. I will be interested to hear that feedback. Unethical research has been raised across the House today. I do not think that any amount of money could ever make up for the experimentation on children that happened as a consequence of this scandal. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who represents Treloar’s, will be aware from his constituents of how frankly heinous the situation was. When I became the responsible Minister, I accepted a recommendation—it was one of the first things across my desk—from Sir Robert Francis, who had conducted a review of the scheme. He recommended that there should be an amount of money that does not in any sense reflect the totality of the harm done, but that is there, as an amount within a much larger amount, as a marker of what was particularly heinous in the experimentation. That is the context behind the unethical research awards; they were lower sums than those before the House today, but I accepted the recommendation because I thought it important to have that in the scheme. The amounts that we see are not the totality of the settlement. The right hon. Member for New Forest East asked about the differences between the compensation awarded to living and deceased infected people. I recognise that financial loss awards may be lower for awards to estates— I think that was his point—but that is because the future financial losses for estate claims are paid to the infected person’s dependants rather than the estate. A point was made about psychiatric disorders. The Government have certainly been looking at how to make the severe health condition award for psychiatric disorders more accessible, with a less intrusive ask for evidence. We examined using types of evidence—these are such difficult issues—such as suicide to qualify for the award, but in my view imposing a retraumatising requirement would place an unconscionable burden on families who have already been through decades of mental suffering. When designing any compensation scheme, the Government have to ensure that no mechanism or award criterion inadvertently creates a risk to potentially vulnerable people. Instead, the new special category mechanism of a severe health condition award allows applicants to access more compensation for mental health problems that they have experienced, in excess of the core route—without, I repeat, an unreasonable ask for evidence. A really important point was raised about the recognition of carers. The care award is provided to a person making a claim as an infected person or as the representative of a deceased infected person’s estate. A living infected person claiming compensation can, however, instruct IBCA to pay all or some of the award to an eligible affected person who provided them with care. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about criminal prosecutions. The House will realise that it is not for me as a Minister, or indeed for any other Minister, to make prosecutorial decisions—that is rightly independent of Government and is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service—but I thought that the House would welcome an update. Given the nationwide scope of the independent infected blood inquiry, and in the absence of a clear lead police force, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has engaged experienced senior investigators to conduct a review of the available evidence. They have been assessing extensive information provided by the inquiry, which has been supporting the investigation fully, and legal advice to look at next steps. In March, I wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to reaffirm my and the Government’s commitment to make any and all relevant information around the infected blood inquiry available to the prosecuting authorities, where requested, so that an informed decision could be based on the evidence. In May, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire may already be aware, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published a statement that its initial review, which focused on events at Treloar’s, did not provide sufficient information for a viable criminal investigation. However, terms of reference are now being developed for a further review of the remaining chapters. Decisions on that investigation and the timeframe are obviously for the NPCC, but the House should be assured that I stand ready to assist in providing evidence in any way possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli asked about the eligibility of affected estates. It is right that following the inquiry’s additional report, we have amended the scheme so that the estate of a deceased affected person is now eligible to claim compensation where an affected person passed away between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031. The recommendation from Sir Brian Langstaff was a cut-off of 31 December 2029, but we have actually extended that a couple of years further. The issue of interferon was raised by a number of Members. The Government have accepted the inquiry’s recommendation to introduce a new higher level award for infected people who were treated with interferon. The new level 2b core compensation award will provide more financial loss and care compensation for the full two years after treatment and will be available to anyone treated with interferon who would otherwise be receiving a level 2 award. I did not recognise the point made by the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield about a 12-week minimum, but when I look at the detail of the case, I can look into that. The point being made to me was twofold. The first point about evidence and transparency was made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. A technical expert group gives advice to Government. One of the things I have said is that we need transparency on its members, its minutes and its evidence, and my attitude is that we should publish it so that it is out there and people can see it. The second point about the long-term impact was raised by a couple of Members. If someone has experienced long-term impacts following interferon treatment that have impacted on their ability to work or their need for care, they may be eligible for additional compensation through the special category mechanism severe health condition award. That ensures that those with long-term side effects receive additional financial support. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who is no longer in her place, raised a point about inheritance tax and secondary transfers. That is a matter that I hope I have rectified and that was announced in the Budget last year, but I will certainly follow up with her on the specific case that she raised. A number of Members mentioned the duty of candour. The House should be in no doubt about my commitment to the Hillsborough law and the duty of candour. I believe that we are well over 90% of the way there. As the House has been told in previous updates, the outstanding issue on the Hillsborough law is how exactly we strike that balance between a duty of candour and the work of the security and intelligence services, but I am very confident that we can resolve that satisfactorily. I look forward to driving forward the work on the Hillsborough law, which will be a landmark moment in terms of the legal duty that we are talking about in this House. When we think of so many of the scandals that have come before us, even in my 11 years as a Member of Parliament, they all have a similarity. Sir Brian Langstaff said in his inquiry that it was not really about specific people who were involved in a conspiracy—if that was the case, we could identify them and they could be prosecuted. He said it was about a culture of institutional defensiveness—that, actually, what people do when terrible things happen is to protect either their own reputation or the reputation of the institution in which they serve. We will have a landmark moment when that law goes on the statute book, but beyond that there will be a need to drive cultural change to ensure that terrible scandals such as this do not happen in the future. This compensation scheme exists because it is absolutely the right thing to do, but it exists because of the way that campaigners over many, many years continued in the face of state denial to drive this forward because of their suffering and that of their families. We cannot in this House change the past, but we certainly can mark it and remember it. It was a solemn privilege for me to attend the service of remembrance organised by the Infected Blood Memorial Committee in St Paul’s cathedral last month. It was designed by the community, for the community, and it was a profoundly moving moment, and I was privileged to speak to the members of the committee, very ably chaired by Clive Smith. They are continuing their important work towards a national memorial, and I know they take a very open approach to seeking the community’s views at every opportunity. For me, that service of remembrance underscored the importance of getting this right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge pointed out, it is absolutely crucial to get the compensation scheme right, but it is one of a number of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. We owe it collectively as a House to get that right for future generations, to ensure that nothing like this can happen again. I believe that is the very least we can do.