On 7th and 8th May 2025, The Infected Blood Inquiry reopened to hold hearings to explore the timeliness and adequacy of the Government’s response to compensation. The decision to reopen the Inquiry stemmed from extensive criticism from the community regarding the compensation scheme’s development.
The first session of these hearings reflected these concerns, hearing evidence from a panel of people infected and affected, campaigners and support organisations. The panel included Samantha May, our Helpline Information and Support Service Manager.
Members of the panel described a moment of joy and vindication in the publication of the Inquiry’s report on 20 May 2024, followed by a year of disappointment, worry, and torment following the construction of a compensation scheme without any community input, that is now beset with issues and paying people at a frighteningly slow rate. Panellists reflected that this last year has echoed the trauma that many have faced for decades, with the community now exhausted, let down, and losing hope that they will ever receive fair compensation.
Members of the panel outlined the near-total side-lining of the community in relation to the development of the scheme, with meetings with officials few and far between. Even when they have occurred, most left feeling that they been talked at and not to, and had their concerns and suggestions ignored.
A host of issues with the scheme were outlined including unfair tariffs for hepatitis C, unjustified exclusion for some groups, excessive burden of proof required, discontinuity with existing support schemes, and IBCA’s lack of independence and discretion. Alongside this, panellists reiterated that the rate at which people are being allowed to make claims is unacceptably slow.
Closing out the session, concrete recommendations were made as to how to address these problems, as well a call for the press to take the notice they should be of what is going on. Andy Evans, Chair of campaign group Tainted Blood also took the opportunity to thank Sir Brian and the Inquiry for their support and foresight to keep the Inquiry open. This was met with a standing ovation.
The afternoon of day one saw Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office Nick Thomas-Symonds challenged on the approach the Government has taken. Coming into office with Labour’s General Election victory in July of last year, Thomas-Symonds outlined the position he inherited, and then attempted to explain this current Government’s decisions.
When discussing the unfairness of many elements of the scheme, KC Jenni Richards asked why it would not be possible to consider the concerns from the community whilst simultaneously continuing to pay out claims. In the eventuality of new criteria for compensation being developed, it could then be possible to top-up previously awarded claims. She stressed that the community are deeply unhappy and upset with the scheme and this action could go some ways to addressing that. Thomas-Symonds rejected this idea, arguing that this may cause delay for compensation payments, which he described as the standard he uses to assess every possible change. He was eager to make this point clear throughout the hearings, highlighting the extent to which all compensation-related decisions remain within the Government.
Mr Thomas-Symonds did agree to go away and consider several proposals, however, including:
- Whether widows and widowers might continue to have the support of the support schemes.
- Whether there should be a supplementary route by which children, parents and siblings could obtain further compensation.
- Whether there is within the current legislation, or should be, a cut-off date for HIV infections which occurred prior to 1 January 1982.
- Whether the differences in eligibility criteria between the SCM (special category mechanism) and the new Special Healthcare Award should be revisited.
- Whether it would be possible to give IBCA the power to review and accept claims for supplementary payments on unethical research on a case-by-case basis.
The Infected Blood Compensation Authority’s Chair Sir Robert Francis and CEO David Foley were questioned at the start of day two on IBCA’s operations, discussing the speed of claim processing and community engagement.
When discussing the possibility of fast tracking claims where legal representatives would already have compiled the evidence, David Foley argued that this would essentially disadvantage those currently without representation, given the finite capacity IBCA have to process claims. On the subject of capacity, Mr Foley also confirmed that he is in the process of talks with the Cabinet Office, stating that if IBCA had more resource, they’d be able to move at a faster rate.
Claims by affected individuals cannot be passed onto their estates if they pass away prior to an offer being accepted, and given that the first set of affected claims is expected to be processed at the end of this calendar year, this policy has received a lot of criticism. Sir Robert Francis did point during out this hearing that his recommendation last year was for this not to be the case – and Mr Foley stated that IBCA are considering allowing affected individuals to register their information sooner – so to hopefully speed up claims when they begin to be made.
Mr Foley also agreed that the number of offers made is ‘shockingly low’ given that Sir Robert’s recommendations for a compensation framework were published in 2022, but in terms of the work they have done since May, the number of staff recruited and claims processed is a ‘substantial achievement.’ This was met with audible gasps from the audience in the room.
James Quinault, Director General in the Cabinet Office provided evidence in the final session of the hearings. He was asked to explain the previous Government’s decision making in the first steps of the scheme’s design. He was then pushed both on the finer details of how we see the scheme today and why community engagement has been so minimal throughout this process.
Much of the scheme’s design rests on an Expert Group that provided recommendations prior to the current government coming into power. Mr Quinault argued that it was established in the way it was so it could provide advice to the Government, and decisions such as not to publicly disclose the members of the group were taken so that they could make these recommendations without the feeling of need to make public justification.
When rightly pressed on the lack of community input to the process, and why the time period allotted for Sir Robert Francis’s community engagement exercise that produced 74 recommendations was so brief, Mr Quinault stated that this was a result of a significantly truncated overall timeline they were facing. The Government had a statutory deadline of August to lay out the initial regulations for the scheme.
Mr Quinault was also questioned on a host of details of schemes design, including the onerous evidence requirements for the supplementary route’s Severe Health Award for psychiatric disorders. A letter of statement of concern from the Infected Blood Psychology Service regarding these requirements was presented to the hearing, and Mr Quinault confirmed that the Minister will be considering this issue.
It was suggested that IBCA could be able to award discretionary payments on a more case by case basis if there was an overarching band set by the Cabinet Office, and whilst Mr Quinault did agree that this was feasible to an extent, he stressed that in his view any approaches like this would add complexity to the scheme and therefore result in further delay of processing and payments. He acknowledged that there are elements that may seem unfair, but argued that this is unavoidable in a broad stroke tariff scheme such as this.
Jenni Richards KC ended her questioning with an observation, “it should have been pretty obvious that it would go wrong if people (members of the infected blood community) weren’t involved from an early stage”; Mr Quinault agreed this was a fair observation, adding that it was not the intention of the Government to exclude the community but a result of wider circumstances.
The Inquiry will remain open for the coming weeks as it seeks to secure any further evidence it may need, and has requested further evidence submissions up to 23 May. Following that, the Inquiry will begin the process of producing a further report and recommendations on these matters.