Minister: Infected blood compensation expected to be resolved before election

Cabinet Office minister John Glen said the Government is “not yet in a position” to give any final decisions on compensation, adding it would be “inappropriate” to pre-judge the findings of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s final report.

But he hoped to bring the matter “to a conclusion” next year after MPs repeatedly challenged him to say whether victims would receive compensation within the lifetime of the current Parliament, given an election has to take place by January 2025.

Thousands of patients were infected with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.

SNP MP Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) told the Commons: “What the victims want to hear is a clear timeline as to when final compensation payments will be made.

“What they want to hear and see is the urgency that he talks about. There’s a view that this Government is trying to kick this into the next Parliament, that the Treasury are dragging their heels.”

He asked: “Will he confirm this will be all resolved before this Parliament is dissolved?”

Mr Glen replied: “That is my expectation. I’m doing everything I can to bring this to a conclusion, a substantial conclusion after the publication of the final report.

“I’m speaking to colleagues in many departments and working with officials across Government to get to the end point that I’ve set out several times this afternoon.”

The inquiry into the scandal was due to publish its final report this autumn but it will now be published in March 2024 due to the “sheer volume and scale of the material”.

Mr Glen said the date of the inquiry’s final report is expected to be clarified on January 17 and the Government will deliver a “comprehensive” response within 25 sitting days of its publication.

He also told MPs that a “bespoke” psychological service for people infected or affected by blood products delivered by the NHS is intended to “go live in early summer 2024”.

MPs also heard the Government is appointing clinical, legal and social care experts to advise the Cabinet Office on detailed technical considerations to ensure it has the “relevant expertise to make informed choices” in responding to the inquiry’s recommendations on compensation.

The House of Commons earlier this month defeated the Government to ensure ministers must establish a body to administer the full compensation scheme within three months of the Victims and Prisoners Bill becoming law.

Mr Glen reiterated the Government accepts the “moral case” for compensation and said it is “working through the implications” of the amendment approved by MPs.

He said decisions on compensation must consider the infected blood victims and the costs to the public sector.

Conservative MP Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West), the Father of the House, said: “We are not doing enough, fast enough.”

Sir Peter urged the Government to admit whether the delay was due to money, adding: “If it’s a question of money, how much, and the cash flow of the Government, say so now.”

Mr Glen replied: “I cannot reiterate enough the commitment that the Government has to deal with this as quickly as possible and I’m doing all I can to gain that consensus across Government to move forward.”

Labour’s Dame Diana Johnson, a leading campaigner on the issue, said the Government’s statement would cause “huge anguish” to victims and “fuel their suspicion” that the Government is “still playing for time”.

Dame Diana also questioned why there was “unlimited funding for the Rwanda policy” – a nod to the Government’s asylum plans – but not for infected blood victims.

Under an initial compensation scheme, only victims themselves or bereaved partners can receive an interim payment of about £100,000.

Shadow Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds questioned the delay in handing out compensation, saying: “There’s no need to wait for the Bill to come back or for the inquiry to publish its final report to make the required urgent progress on setting up the basis of the compensation scheme.

“The Government should make good on the spirit of that commitment, recognise the will of the House, not least because in addition there was a commitment to act in the King’s Speech.”

Conservative MP Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) said he gave the Government the “benefit of the doubt” by abstaining on the vote earlier this month, adding: “I have to say that if I could turn the clock back based on what I’ve heard today I would now want to vote for the amendment.”