Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024

Last updated

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024
Statutory Instrument
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Variant 1, 2022).svg
Citation SI 2024/872
Introduced by Nick Thomas-Symonds, Minister for the Cabinet Office
Territorial extent  UK-wide
Dates
Made22 August 2024
Laid before Parliament23 August 2024
Commencement 23 August 2024 (2024-08-23)
Other legislation
Made under Victims and Prisoners Act 2024
Status: Current legislation
Text of statute as originally enacted

The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/872) is a statutory instrument (SI) that was laid before Parliament on 23 August 2024 to make provision for a compensation payment scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal as stipulated in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. [1] [2]

Contents

The regulations enact a compensation scheme to make payments via the "core route" to both the living infected and deceased infected. Eligibility is defined within Part 3 of the regulations as someone living or deceased "who has received NHS treatment, or armed forces treatment overseas, with blood, blood products or tissue known to be capable of transmitting HIV, hepatitis C, or hepatitis B". [3]

A second phase of regulations will be made to enhance this statutory instrument and will expand the scope to cover eligible affected applicants. [3] The next tranche will also deal with legislating for the supplementary route in relation to the claims of the infected and affected communities, depending on their circumstances. [4] [5]

Core route

The core route provides for set tariffs with predefined severity levels in relation to infection with Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. [6] This route offers the option of receiving compensation as an overall lump sum, or as monthly payments, with further options as to the frequency of the payments over set periods of either 5, 10 or 25 years. This option will attract CPI uprating as a way of offsetting any disadvantage caused by choosing to take the compensation as periodic payments. [7]

Part 4, Chapter 2, makes provision for the following series of awards under the core route: [8] [9]

In order for an eligible infected person to receive their award under the core route, the IBCA [lower-alpha 1] must first establish that the applicant is no longer registered with an Infected Blood Support Scheme. The applicant's IBSS [lower-alpha 2] beneficiary status must first be relinquished in order for them to receive their compensation award under this route. [12]

IBSS route

For applicants already registered with an Infected Blood Support Scheme (IBSS), Part 5 of the regulations makes provision for an alternative compensation pathway, the "IBSS route". [13] This allows beneficiaries the option to retain (for their lifetime) any regular support payments which they were receiving under the IBSS entities and from 31 March 2025, these payments will undergo a status change from the historical ex gratia [lower-alpha 3] nature to the support payments being taken into account as compensation payments under the new IBCA scheme. An applicant's future financial loss and future care awards will be combined and assessed to determine the total compensation from these future-calculated components, which together will be used to fund the regular support payments from 1 April 2025. [3]

Under the IBSS route, the IBCA can make the following awards according to Part 5, paragraph 23: [3]

As with the core route, the compensation awards under paragraph 5 can be taken as periodic payments spread over prescribed terms of either 5, 10 or 25 years. [13]

Awards to estates

Compensation payments can be claimed by the personal representative of an eligible infected person who is deceased. [16] Under Part 3, section 7 (1), a person is deemed an eligible infected person where paragraph (2), (6), (7) or (8) (of section 7) applies, whether or not that person is deceased. [13]

For the IBCA to process an estate claim, the personal representative must provide documented evidence that under the law amounts to sufficient proof in the form of the following: [3]

Sadly much of the compensation will be awarded in respect of people who have already died because of their infection. I was told that there has been considerable anxiety about the difficulties arising out of making awards to their estates.

—Sir Robert Francis KC, 16 August 2024 [17]

The evidential burden falls on the applicant [13] and the legal standard of proof in relation to any decision under the regulations is the balance of probabilities. [18]

Where an infected person, prior to their death, was a beneficiary of one of the Infected Blood Support Schemes, or one of the Alliance House organisations, their estate will be deemed eligible for compensation through the scheme, but the application may require the provision of further information. [16]

Under the core route, the representative of an estate can claim the following: [19]

Under Part 4, section 8, (4), the overall estate award must be taken as a lump sum since the periodic payment option is only available to living infected applicants. [22]

Autonomy award

The scheme introduces what the Cabinet Office referred to as a novel award. [23] It is intended to afford an element of compensation for the distress suffered as a result of interference with the personal autonomy and private life of the infected. [24] [25]

"It was unethical and wrong that people were not told that they were being tested for HIV or for hepatitis. The failure to tell them was a denial of their personal autonomy."

—The Report, Infected Blood Inquiry, 20 May 2024 [26]

The regulations, at 16 (1), cite three specific examples: [27]

  1. the loss of marriage or partnership prospects
  2. the loss of the opportunity to have children
  3. the impact on that person of attacks on that person's home as a consequence of the infection

The background of this category of claim emanates from the Sir Robert Francis KC Recommendations for a Framework which frequently mentions interference in the autonomy of the infected through lack of informed consent or informed choice around the time just prior to infection. [24] It was also borne out of the work of the Infected Blood Inquiry which identified, inter alia , a pattern of a lack of information about the risks of treatment, patients not being provided with sufficient information about their diagnosis, failure by healthcare professionals to be candid with patients and obtain informed consent, and patients having their blood taken or "being tested upon" without them being made aware. [28]

Reception

One campaign group welcomed the regulations as a "massive step forward" with what they felt was a scheme that appeared to be largely "fair overall". [29] The UK Haemophilia Society cautiously welcomed the regulations but expressed concern that the compensation payment levels did not fully reflect the true impact of the financial loss and injury suffered by certain victims. [18] The Hepatitis C Trust welcomed the legislation but admitted to having reservations over the disparities between the infection bandings. Susan Lee, a solicitor for the Trust, said: "We welcome this legislation establishing, at long last, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority ... We are still examining the information released today and awaiting further detail, but remain concerned by the disparities in proposed compensation for people who were given hepatitis C, hepatitis B and HIV." [29]

Legislative scrutiny

The regulations and accompanying explanatory memorandum have been criticised by the House of Lords select committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC). In their Second Report, published 5 September 2024, they draw instrument 2024/872 to the special attention of the House due to the explanatory memorandum being "of poor quality, using overly technical language and lacking basic information about the policy". [30]

The SLSC focused on five aspects all lacking further detail: [30]

The committee went as far as to express concern over whether the Cabinet Office was "withholding information on the impact and cost of the Regulations". [31]

SI 2024/872 was subject to the made affirmative procedure and requires positive approval of Parliament by 23 October 2024. [32] The government tabled a motion to approve the instrument on 3 September 2024. [33] Following debate in both houses of Parliament, [32] the regulations were approved on 21 October 2024 in the House of Lords [34] and on 23 October 2024 the House of Commons. [35]

Notes

  1. ↑ Part 3 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 establishes a body corporate called the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, "the IBCA". [10]
  2. ↑ Infected Blood Support Schemes (IBSS) replaced the previous ex gratia financial assistance schemes also known as the "Alliance House Organisations". [3] Each administration has their own scheme, EIBSS (England), WIBSS (Wales), SIBSS (Scotland) and IBPS NI (Northern Ireland). Each support scheme also administers the interim compensation payments. [11]
  3. ↑ Historically, the Infected Blood Support Schemes have provided support to people registered with the various schemes on an ex gratia basis. [14] [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hepatitis A</span> Acute infectious disease of the liver

Hepatitis A is an infectious disease of the liver caused by Hepatovirus A (HAV); it is a type of viral hepatitis. Many cases have few or no symptoms, especially in the young. The time between infection and symptoms, in those who develop them, is two–six weeks. When symptoms occur, they typically last eight weeks and may include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice, fever, and abdominal pain. Around 10–15% of people experience a recurrence of symptoms during the 6 months after the initial infection. Acute liver failure may rarely occur, with this being more common in the elderly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Hong Kong</span> Judicial system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has its foundation in the English common law system, inherited from being a former British colony and dependent territory. There are several sources of law, the primary ones being statutes enacted by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong and case law made by decisions of the courts of Hong Kong.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada</span> Royal commission of inquiry into the tainted blood scandal in Canada

The tainted blood disaster, or the tainted blood scandal, was a Canadian public health crisis in the 1980s in which thousands of people were exposed to HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products. It became apparent that inadequately-screened blood, often coming from high-risk populations, was entering the system through blood transfusions. It is now considered to be the largest single (preventable) public health disaster in the history of Canada.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) co-infection is a multi-faceted, chronic condition that significantly impacts public health. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 2 to 15% of those infected with HIV are also affected by HCV, increasing their risk of morbidity and mortality due to accelerated liver disease. The burden of co-infection is especially high in certain high-risk groups, such as intravenous drug users and men who have sex with men. These individuals who are HIV-positive are commonly co-infected with HCV due to shared routes of transmission including, but not limited to, exposure to HIV-positive blood, sexual intercourse, and passage of the Hepatitis C virus from mother to infant during childbirth.

<i>Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal</i> 2005 American film

Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal is a feature-length documentary by Arkansas filmmaker and investigative journalist, Kelly Duda, released in 2005. Through interviews and the presentation of documents and footage, Duda alleged that in the 1970s and 1980s, the Arkansas prison system profited from selling blood plasma from inmates infected with viral hepatitis and HIV. The documentary contends that thousands of victims who received transfusions of blood products derived from these plasma products, Factor VIII, died as a result.

The Lindsay Tribunal was set up in Ireland in 1999 to investigate the infection of haemophiliacs with HIV and Hepatitis C from contaminated blood products supplied by the Blood Transfusion Service Board.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority</span>

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) is an executive agency of the UK Government. The Authority, established in 1996 and based in Glasgow, administers a compensation scheme for injuries caused to victims of violent crime in England, Scotland and Wales. It is funded by the Ministry of Justice in England and Wales and the Justice Directorate in Scotland. The current Chief Executive is Linda Brown.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christine Lee (academic)</span> English medical researcher

Christine Lee is an English medical researcher. She is Emerita Professor of Haemophilia at the University of London, and founding Editor of Haemophilia. She trained in medicine at Somerville College, Oxford, where she was awarded First Class Honours and was the first female scholar of the Oxford University Medical School. She was awarded a Doctorate of Science (Medicine) by the University of London in 1996.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hepatitis B</span> Human viral infection

Hepatitis B is an infectious disease caused by the hepatitis B virus (HBV) that affects the liver; it is a type of viral hepatitis. It can cause both acute and chronic infection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Infected blood scandal in the United Kingdom</span> The historical contamination of blood products in the UK with HIV and hepatitis C virus

From the 1970s to the early 1990s, tens of thousands of people were infected with hepatitis C and HIV as a result of receiving infected blood or infected clotting factor products in the United Kingdom. Many of the products were imported from the United States, and distributed to patients by the National Health Service. Most recipients had haemophilia or had received a blood transfusion following childbirth or surgery. It has been estimated that more than 30,000 patients received contaminated blood, resulting in the deaths of at least 3,000 people. In July 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May announced an independent public inquiry into the scandal, for which she was widely praised as successive governments going back to the 1980s had refused such an inquiry. May stated that "the victims and their families who have suffered so much pain and hardship deserve answers as to how this could possibly have happened." The final report was published in seven volumes on 20 May 2024, concluding that the scandal could have been largely avoided, patients were knowingly exposed to "unacceptable risks", and that doctors, the government and NHS tried to cover up what happened by "hiding the truth".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Riot (Damages) Act 1886</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It authorised the payment of compensation, from the police fund of the police area in question, to persons whose property had been injured, destroyed or stolen during a riot. The Act was repealed and replaced by the Riot Compensation Act 2016 which received royal assent on 23 March 2016.

The Penrose Inquiry was the public inquiry into hepatitis C and HIV infections from NHS Scotland treatment with blood and blood products such as factor VIII, often used by people with haemophilia. The event is often called the Tainted Blood Scandal or Contaminated Blood Scandal.

Arthur Leslie Bloom FRCP, FRCPath (1930–1992) was a Welsh physician focused on the field of Haemophilia.

Charles Rocco Carmine Rizza FRCPEd was a British consultant physician who specialised in haematology.

<i>R (March) v Secretary of State for Health</i> UK judicial review quashing a decision on the grounds of material error of fact

R (March) v Secretary of State for Health was a 2010 judicial review which challenged the UK Department of Health's decision not to implement Recommendation 6(h) of the Archer Independent Inquiry. The case was important in developing the doctrine of error of fact in public law which previously had not readily been the subject of judicial intervention.

M.C. and Others v Italy is a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 3 September 2013 in which Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) was engaged due to the applicants not being afforded annual uprating which the court deemed damage to their property of a disproportionate character in the form of an exorbitant charge. The Strasbourg ruling sets an important precedent for higher monthly compensation payments to be paid to the 60,000 or so victims of contaminated blood transfusions in Italy. The effect of this ruling increased payments to the applicants by 40%.

The Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood, often abbreviated to ACVSB, was a committee formed in March 1989 in the United Kingdom to devise policy and advise ministers and the Department of Health on the safety of blood with respect to viral infections. The scope of the ACVSB concerned areas of significant policy for the whole of the United Kingdom and operated under the terms of reference: "To advise the Health Departments of the UK on measures to ensure the virological safety of blood, whilst maintaining adequate supplies of appropriate quality for both immediate use and for plasma processing." Of particular emphasis to the remit was the testing of blood donors using surrogate markers for Non-A Non-B hepatitis (NANBH) and later on, HCV-screening of blood donors.

<i>HIV Haemophilia Litigation</i> Legal action by haemophiliacs infected with HIV through blood products

The HIV Haemophilia Litigation [1990] 41 BMLR 171, [1990] 140 NLJR 1349 (CA), [1989] E N. 2111, also known as AMcG002, and HHL, was a legal claim by 962 plaintiffs, mainly haemophiliacs, who were infected with HIV as a result of having been treated with blood products in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The first central defendants were the then Department of Health, with other defendants being the Licensing Authority of the time, (MCA), the CSM, the CBLA, and the regional health authorities of England and Wales. In total, there were 220 defendants in the action.

<i>CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care</i> Judicial review permission appeal challenging non-inclusion of hepatitis B

CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 86 was an appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the infected blood support scheme administered by the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) for non-inclusion of those infected with chronic Hepatitis B virus. The appeal was based on the grounds that the exclusion of those infected with HBV from the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) was unreasonable and discriminatory, contrary to article 14 when read in conjunction with article 8 and article 1 protocol 1 (A1P1) of the ECHR. The appellant also claimed that there was different treatment and that the failure to include those infected with HBV was unreasonable, and that the original application for review should not have been deemed out of time.

In 1994, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service Board (BTSB) informed the Minister for Health that a blood product they had distributed in 1977 for the treatment of pregnant mothers had been contaminated with the hepatitis C virus. Following a report by an expert group, it was discovered that the BTSB had produced and distributed a second infected batch in 1991. The Government established a Tribunal of Inquiry to establish the facts of the case and also agreed to establish a tribunal for the compensation of victims but seemed to frustrate and delay the applications of these, in some cases terminally, ill women.

References

  1. ↑ "Establishing the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme in Regulations". GOV.UK. Retrieved 29 August 2024. Today, the Government has laid regulations to establish the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme, as required by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
  2. ↑ Mackintosh, Thomas (24 August 2024). "Infected blood authority can now pay patients, minister says". BBC News. Retrieved 29 August 2024. The Cabinet Office published a lengthy policy paper on Friday detailing the tariff-based scheme and laid secondary legislation setting out the criteria for the first payouts.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Explanatory Memorandum to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024" (PDF). legislation.gov.uk. 2024 No. 872. Retrieved 30 August 2024.
  4. ↑ "Government Update on the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme: 16 August 2024". GOV.UK. Retrieved 30 August 2024. ...the second phase of regulations will be laid to adapt the 'core' route for the affected community, as well as create an infected and affected 'supplementary' route where claimants can personalise their claim.
  5. ↑ Nick Thomas-Symonds, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (2 September 2024). "Infected Blood Compensation Scheme". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 753. Parliament of the United Kingdom: Commons. col. 77. The Government are clear that although laying the regulations relating to infected individuals taking the core route is an essential step to delivering justice, the work is not finished. A second set of regulations will provide for other elements of the compensation scheme, including compensation payments to affected individuals and for claims under the supplementary route.
  6. ↑ "Infected Blood Compensation Scheme - Engagement Explainer" (PDF). haemophilia.org.uk. Cabinet Office. June 2024. Retrieved 1 September 2024. The Scheme proposal has been designed using a tariff-based framework. This framework approach was recommended by Sir Robert Francis' Compensation Framework Study and the Inquiry's Second Interim Report.
  7. ↑ "Infected Blood Compensation Scheme overview: Living infected persons". GOV.UK. Retrieved 1 September 2024. Compensation will be payable through a lump sum or series of regular payments (instalments) over 5, 10 or 25 years ... Compensation received through instalments will be uplifted each year in line with CPI.
  8. ↑ Durrant, Will (24 August 2024). "Ministers give compensation authority the power to make infected blood payments". Evening Standard. Retrieved 30 August 2024. The overall payment will be made up of a series of awards, including an injury impact award which "compensates for past and future physical and mental injury and emotional distress and injury to feelings", a social impact award for stigma and social isolation, and the autonomy award which takes into account how infected blood may have affected patients' private and family life.
  9. ↑ Durrant, Will (24 August 2024). "Ministers give compensation authority the power to make infected blood payments". The Independent. Retrieved 30 August 2024. The Government has also confirmed financial loss and care cost compensation awards.
  10. ↑ "Victims and Prisoners Act 2024". legislation.gov.uk. 24 May 2024. Part 3. Retrieved 31 August 2024.
  11. ↑ "Infected Blood Support Schemes | Infected Blood Inquiry". www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk. Retrieved 31 August 2024.
  12. ↑ "The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024: Section 22", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 23 August 2024, SI 2024/872 (s. 22), retrieved 1 September 2024
  13. 1 2 3 4 "The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024". legislation.gov.uk. 23 August 2024. 2024 No. 872 (Part 5). Retrieved 31 August 2024.
  14. ↑ R (March) v Secretary of State for Health , 765, 3(EWHC2010)("For many years, however, successive governments have provided funds on an ex gratia basis for distribution via three special purpose mechanisms: the Macfarlane Trust, the Eileen Trust and the Skipton Fund.").
  15. ↑ "Information about the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA)". www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk. Retrieved 1 September 2024– via NHSBSA. Payments will continue to be paid, at the same level, via the Infected Blood Support Schemes (IBSS) and on an ex-gratia basis until 31 March 2025. This means that any payments received before and up to 31 March 2025 will not be deducted from compensation awarded through the new Scheme. After this point, from 1 April 2025, people who receive IBSS payments will continue to receive payments until such time that their case is assessed under the new Scheme by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA).
  16. 1 2 3 "Infected Blood Compensation Scheme overview: Estates of a deceased infected person". Cabinet Office. 23 August 2024. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
  17. ↑ "Statement from Sir Robert Francis on his recommendations". GOV.UK. Infected Blood Compensation Authority. 16 August 2024. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
  18. 1 2 Courtney, Jeff (23 August 2024). "Government lays Detailed Regulations on Core Route of Infected Blood Compensation Scheme". The Haemophilia Society. Retrieved 30 August 2024. We still have concerns that the compensation does not fully capture the full extent of injury and loss for some people.
  19. 1 2 "Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Summary". GOV.UK. 23 August 2024. Retrieved 2 September 2024. In addition to anticipated loss of earnings, a flat rate of £12,500 will be paid to all infected people (or their estate) to cover miscellaneous expenses including travel to appointments, extra cost of insurance etc.
  20. 1 2 "Infected Blood Compensation Scheme - Engagement Explainer" (PDF). Cabinet Office – via The Haemophilia Society. Where an infected person is deceased: an award for past financial loss (i.e. from the point of infection to death) is paid to the estate of the infected person... We have therefore added past care award values which reflect commercial rates deducted 25%...
  21. ↑ "Infected Blood Inquiry Response Expert Group Final Report". GOV.UK. Infected Blood Compensation Authority. 16 August 2024. Retrieved 2 September 2024. Using current rates even for past care is a reasonable way to adjust for inflation. However, it is likely that care will in the past have been provided by family members or friends rather than by commercial agencies. To reflect this, the care award for past care is calculated on the basis that tax, national insurance and other costs will not have been paid. As noted by the Compensation Study paragraph 9.63 the discount of 25% that we have applied to is consistent with court practice.
  22. ↑ "Compensation payments – core route". legislation.gov.uk. 23 August 2024. Part 4. Retrieved 2 September 2024. Where P is not deceased, the relevant person may make an election (a "periodic payment election") that the compensation payment is to be paid as periodic payments, and, where the relevant person so elects, they must decide the term over which the periodic payments are to be paid, which may only be a fixed term of 5, 10 or 25 years.
  23. ↑ "Papers for Meeting with Sir Robert Francis" (PDF). haemophilia.scot. Cabinet Office. 18 June 2024. p. 13. Retrieved 6 September 2024. The Scheme's Autonomy award is a novel award. Though a direct comparison cannot be drawn, the award levels for the Autonomy award were informed following consideration of similar compensation awards (e.g. Windrush Impact on Life), statutory awards for injury to feelings (Vento guidelines) and previous cases in which the courts have considered it appropriate to increase the award of damages due to the level of distress caused.
  24. 1 2 Francis, KC, Sir Robert (June 2022). "Compensation and Redress for the Victims of Infected Blood - Recommendations for a Framework" (PDF). infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk. pp. 35–36. Recommendations 7-8. Retrieved 6 September 2024.
  25. ↑ "Infected Blood Compensation Authority - Recommendations of Sir Robert Francis KC to the Government on the proposals for a compensation scheme (HTML)". GOV.UK. 16 August 2024. Retrieved 6 September 2024. The autonomy award is intended as a novel award to reflect the lack of consent for treatment, the failure to inform patients of the risks, the distress of having these diseases and the impact on family and social life, including the loss of the chance to have children.
  26. ↑ "The Report - Volume 1" (PDF). infectedbloodinquiry.org. 20 May 2024. HC 569-I. Retrieved 6 September 2024.
  27. ↑ "The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024: Section 16", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 23 August 2024, SI 2024/872 (s. 16), retrieved 6 September 2024
  28. ↑ "The Report - Volume 1" (PDF). infectedbloodinquiry.org. 20 May 2024. p. 84. HC 569-I. Retrieved 6 September 2024. The third is the profoundly unethical lack of respect for individual patient autonomy ... One of the consequences of people not being told that tests were being undertaken, quite apart from the affront to their personal autonomy, was that the results of such testing then came out of the blue.
  29. 1 2 Ungoed-Thomas, Jon (24 August 2024). "Victims of UK's infected blood scandal to start receiving payouts by end of year". The Observer. ISSN   0029-7712 . Retrieved 30 August 2024. Jason Evans, founder of the Factor 8 campaign group, whose father Jonathan died in October 1993 after contracting HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood, described the scheme as a "massive step forward" ..."No amount of compensation will ever replace those who died, but this scheme seems fair overall." ... The Hepatitis C Trust has raised concerns over the disparities in proposed compensation for sufferers of different diseases.
  30. 1 2 "Second Report". publications.parliament.uk. Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. 5 September 2024. HL Paper 4. Retrieved 8 September 2024. The compensation scheme is complex, and we found the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to be of poor quality, using overly technical language and lacking basic information about the policy, such as: how those infected can apply and from when; how long claims will take to be processed; when successful applicants can expect payments to be made; the basis on which each claim will be assessed; and impact information including on overall costs and the number of people eligible for payments ... The lack of basic information also makes it difficult for Parliament and the public to scrutinise the Regulations properly.
  31. ↑ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (5 September 2024). "49". 2nd Report of Session 2024–25 (PDF) (Report). House of Lords. p. 12. HL Paper 4. Retrieved 8 September 2024. We are concerned that the Cabinet Office is withholding information on the impact and cost of the Regulations until after the time for Parliamentary scrutiny has passed, which is unacceptable and circumvents proper scrutiny of the Regulations. We have not been given a reason why the costs could not be published ahead of the budget. The House may wish to pursue the issue of costs further.
  32. 1 2 "Timeline - Made affirmative". statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk. Retrieved 22 September 2024. Scheduled for 23 October 2024: Approval period ends.
  33. ↑ "Order Paper for Tuesday 03 September 2024". commonsbusiness.parliament.uk. 3 September 2024. Retrieved 22 September 2024. That the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, (SI, 2024, No. 872), dated 22 August 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 August, be approved.
  34. ↑ Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (21 October 2024). "Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 840. Parliament of the United Kingdom: Lords. col. 480.
  35. ↑ Nick Thomas-Symonds, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (23 October 2024). "Infected Blood Compensation Scheme". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 755. Parliament of the United Kingdom: Commons. col. 317.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.