Labour MPs are warning that Keir Starmer will leave the infected blood compensation scheme as “another fine mess” for Andy Burnham to clear up.
The row comes as the government is set to lay a statutory instrument (SI) this week to allow the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) to pay compensation to victims and their families.
While MPs are largely content with the £12.8bn set aside for compensation, there are fears over the way regulations could make it difficult for victims to access funds, with claims some will be treated better than others.
The infected blood scandal is the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS, where over 30,000 people were infected with HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products and transfusions between the 1970s and early 1990s. It is believed more than 3,000 people died as a result.
An inquiry chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff concluded in May 2024 that the disaster was largely avoidable, citing severe institutional and governmental cover-ups including by former health secretary Lord Ken Clarke among others.
The government is about to complete the scheme but Labour MPs are raising objections over the way IBCA will operate.
It was Mr Burnham, now effectively prime minister-in-waiting, who got the push for compensation under way when he was health secretary in 2009.
But one MP told The Independent that the need to change some of the regulations in the future is an example of “another fine mess that Keir Starmer is leaving for Andy to clear up.”
A different Labour MP who has been leading the objections, Clive Efford, told The Independent that there will not be a rebellion next week but confirmed changes will be needed.
He said: “There are still concerns from certain quarters. Some are about IBCA and can be addressed by them without the need to alter regulations, others do require alterations to the regulations to satisfy the campaigners. I’ll be raising those concerns.”
He went on: “The government has set up a mechanism for ongoing dialogue with the community so I am urging them to listen through that process and make changes as we go forward.
“Once the regulations are in place I expect the IBCA to increase the rate at which it completes cases relating to the affected.”
In a letter he published in May, Mr Burnham also criticised the government for “drawing new dividing lines between people” over compensation for the infected blood scandal.
He claimed the compensation rules involved “divide and rule sort of tactics”.
He added: “I know that new injustices have crept in over the last two years, and the fight needs to be for ever.
“They (the government) should just be making full amends to everybody, not drawing new dividing lines between people, between parents whose children died under 18 and those over.”
His criticism came after the Cabinet Office announced last month that bereaved parents whose infected child died under the age of 18 would receive a 50 per cent uplifted injury award to “recognise the profound impact of this loss”.
However, parents of children who died after they turned 18 would not get the uplift.
Mr Efford has also specifically highlighted the way victims who got hepatitis have been discriminated against.
In a speech in the Commons last month, he said: “Some recognition has to be given in the new regulations to the impact of interferon treatment for those infected with hepatitis. The changes are time-limited to two years for financial loss, and one year for the care award.
“The compensation scheme cannot continue to ignore the real-life effect on victims of long-term interferon treatment, and the associated costs, which are far higher than the time-limited uplifts that the government propose introducing.”
He also voiced widespread concerns about the evidence threshold.
“There is concern that the evidence threshold will be too high, and the Government should allow IBCA to be more flexible and compassionate in considering claims of psychological harm through the special category mechanism.
“The communities consistently pointed out that the current scheme penalises those who died before the compensation scheme came into force. The Paymaster General did not address that issue in his statement earlier this year. The compensation scheme must pay the estates of those who died young for the harm and losses suffered, and end such a clear injustice.”
The Independent has asked the government for a response.
