Compensation delays for infected blood victims prolongs indescribable suffering
9 May 2025, 09:59
It’s highly unusual for a Public Inquiry to be reconvened but this is what Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, chose to do this week following overwhelming feedback from the infected blood community about the inadequacy of the Government’s response on compensation.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
At the official conclusion of the Inquiry last May, the community were on a high believing that all they had suffered over decades had finally been recognised and because multiple failings of the state had been laid bare. Elation quickly gave way to concern, however, after PM Rishi Sunak promised compensation but then called a surprise election the next day. Sir Keir Starmer’s Government thankfully honoured that compensation pledge and has talked of an allocated sum of £11.8bn.
Why is it then that a year later Sir Brian felt obliged to hold a mirror up to the workings of the compensation scheme and call-out its flaws for all to see?
Firstly, the scheme has been slow to ramp-up and pay-out. By its own admission only 106 victims have received payments thus far, with thousands still in limbo about the timetable for them. This is simply not good enough when the scheme is supposed to support some very sick people living with HIV, Hep C or both, who may not live long enough to make it to the front of the queue.
Secondly, the design and operation of the scheme has not lived up to expectation. The Government promised to consult with the community but hasn’t done so. The scheme was supposed to be established as an arms-length public body but is instead staffed largely by the very civil servants victims mistrust after all they have experienced. Some of the language being used, certain paperwork requirements and the lack of legal advice being offered are all compounding a negative experience for those “lucky” enough to have been “invited” to apply.
Thirdly, the scheme is based on a set of regulations many of which may result in significant under-payments to some in the community who should be entitled to greater damages. Some of those who were infected with HIV before 1982 for example; or siblings and children who have themselves had life-chances limited by the illness and loss of a family member to HIV or Hep C. As the criteria stand the intergenerational consequences of the infected blood scandal will not be properly recognised.
We heard movingly from infected victims this week who are anxious, desperate and in extreme cases suicidal, at having heard nothing about when they will be invited to apply for compensation. Others in the affected category are resigned to the fact they may have to wait until 2029 or beyond and then might receive derisory sums.
Sadly the Paymaster General was probably right to say we can’t at this point start again – it would cause yet further interminable delay. But it will be welcome if he can make some of the improvements that he promised Sir Brian he would consider , such as speeding up the delivery of compensation, tweaking certain regulations and the tone deaf aspects of the scheme.
My clients include men in their 60s who were infected as children; children who grew up fatherless & were bullied for being in a household that had HIV; women who lost their children too early after indescribable suffering; women whose husbands infected them unknowingly. I could go on. These are not people on the make. They have lived with serious medical issues, social stigma and family tragedy over many years. They deserve better. We can but hope that Sir Brian’s efforts this week to shine a light on the flaws of the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme will result in some mitigation. The battle continues to secure justice for this community.
________________
Des Collins, Senior Partner Collins Solicitor, represented the largest victim group in the Infected Blood Inquiry - some 1500 people both infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal.
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk
