Victims and Prisoners Bill Third Reading Scottish Legislative
Consent granted, Welsh Legislative Consent granted in part. 1.29pm
Amendment 1 Moved by Lord Bellamy 1: After Clause 31, insert the
following new Clause— “Right to erasure of personal data (1)
Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural
persons with regard to the processing of personal data...Request free trial
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Third Reading
Scottish Legislative Consent granted, Welsh Legislative Consent
granted in part.
1.29pm
Amendment 1
Moved by
1: After Clause 31, insert the following new Clause—
“Right to erasure of personal data
(1) Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection
of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data
and on the free movement of such data (right to erasure) is
amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In paragraph 1, after point (f) insert—
“(g) the personal data have been processed as a result of an
allegation about the data subject—
(i) which was made by a person who is a malicious person in
relation to the data subject (whether they became such a person
before or after the allegation was made),
(ii) which has been investigated by the controller, and
(iii) in relation to which the controller has decided that no
further action is to be taken.”
(3) After paragraph 3 insert—
“4. For the purposes of paragraph (1)(g), a person who has made
an allegation about a data subject is a “malicious person” in
relation to the data subject if the person—
has been convicted of an offence specified in column 1 of the
table in paragraph 5 in relation to which the data subject is a
person specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that
table, or
is subject to a stalking protection order under section 2 of the
Stalking Protection Act 2019 or section 8 of the Protection from
Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) made to
protect the data subject from a risk associated with stalking
(see section 2(1)(c) of the 2019 Act and section 8(2)(c) of the
2022 Act).
The table is as follows—
Offence
Data subject
1. An offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment
Act 1997 (offence of harassment: England and Wales)
A person mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or 1(1A)(a) of that Act
2. An offence under section 2A, 4 or 4A of the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997 (other harassment and stalking offences:
England and Wales)
The person against whom the offence is committed
3. An offence under section 8 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019
(offence of breaching stalking protection order etc)
A person who the stalking protection order was made to protect
from a risk associated with stalking (see section 2(1)(c) of that
Act)
4. An offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 as
respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England
and Wales (within the meaning given by that section) is an
offence specified in entry 1, 2 or 3 of this table
A person specified in column 2 of the entry in which the
corresponding offence is specified
5. An offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or Air Force
Act 1955 as respects which the corresponding civil offence
(within the meaning of that Act) is an offence specified in entry
1 or 2 of this table
A person specified in column 2 of the entry in which the
corresponding civil offence is specified
6. An offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957
as respects which the civil offence (within the meaning of that
section) is an offence specified in entry 1 or 2 of this
table
A person specified in column 2 of the entry in which the civil
offence is specified
7. An offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice and
Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 13) (stalking offences:
Scotland)
The person against whom the offence is committed
8. An offence under section 1 of the Protection from Stalking Act
(Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) (stalking offences:
Northern Ireland)
The person against whom the offence is committed
9. An offence under section 13 of the Protection from Stalking
Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) (offence of breaching
order: Northern Ireland)
A person who the stalking protection order was made to protect
from a risk associated with stalking (see section 8(2)(c) of that
Act)
10. An offence under Article 4 or 6 of the Protection from
Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1180 (N.I.
9)) (harassment offences: Northern Ireland)
The person against whom the offence is committed”
(4) After section 13 of the Data Protection Act 2018 insert—“13A
Meaning of “relevant offence” for purpose of right to erasure(1)
The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the table in
Article 17(5) of the UK GDPR.(2) Regulations under this section
are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””Member's
explanatory statementThis clause adds a new ground which data
subjects can use to obtain erasure of personal data which has
been processed as a result of an allegation about the data
subject by a person who has been convicted of a relevant offence
or who is subject to a stalking protection order protecting the
data subject.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice
() (Con)
My Lords, I have two matters to address. The first matter is the
position on devolution. The majority of the measures in Part 1 of
the Bill apply to England and Wales. Clause 18, which relates to
the issuing of guidance about victim support services, engages
the legislative consent process. The Senedd did not grant
legislative consent for this measure. Accordingly, the Government
will table in the other place an amendment so that this clause
applies to England and reserved matters in Wales only, and
consequently removes the requirement to consult Welsh Ministers
before issuing guidance.
Part 3 of the Bill applies UK-wide, and I can confirm consent has
been granted by the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament. However,
the process has not yet concluded in Northern Ireland. In the
interest of ensuring the legislation is passed and these vital
measures come into force across the UK, we will need to proceed
to legislate for all, including Northern Ireland.
Part 2 of the Bill applies to England and Wales, and engages the
legislative consent process for the appointment of the
independent public advocate. The Bill contains a measure which
requires the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before
declaring a major incident in Wales and appointing an advocate.
The Senedd did not grant consent for this part of the Bill. We
continue to believe that this is an appropriate level of
involvement for the Welsh Government and that it respects the
legislative competence of the Senedd. Having considered the
Senedd's position, the United Kingdom Government have decided
that, in this instance and given the context of major incidents,
we will proceed without the Senedd's consent. It would not be
acceptable for the independent advocate provisions not to apply
in Wales. It is vital that these measures apply to—
(Lab)
Can the Minister explain why the Senedd is refusing to sign up to
this agreement? It might be of interest to the House to know
why.
(Con)
I am afraid I am not in a position to say why the Senedd has
refused consent; only the Senedd can say. The original issue was
whether it should have some kind of veto over the appointment of
the independent public advocate, or whether it should simply be
consulted. One could infer that it was not satisfied with the
requirement to be consulted and wanted a stronger role. That is
an inference I draw as I have no inside information on the point.
In any event, it is vital, in the Government's view, that these
measures apply to England and Wales to bring the benefit to all
victims within England and Wales. So that is the devolution
position.
(CB)
I do not know whether, in this procedure, it is permissible for
me to answer the question which the Minister was not in a
position to. If I might explain, it was hoped that in the spirit
of the United Kingdom you might be able to agree on a lawyer.
There are an awful lot of lawyers and normally parties can agree,
but, as the Welsh Assembly sees it, for some extraordinary reason
the Government refused to do what normal litigants do, which is
to agree on a lawyer. It stuck on that point because it thought
it showed how unworkable the union is becoming if you cannot even
agree on a lawyer.
(Lab)
Quite frankly, there are lots of lawyers in here. I do not know
whether, if we put forward everyone's name, perhaps the Senedd
could agree to someone who is already in the House of Lords.
(Con)
I think this is not a very useful debate to pursue at this stage
of the proceedings. Without going any further, I am under the
impression that it is not only the question of agreeing on a
lawyer, but whether a standing public advocate should be
appointed in the first place. I suggest that is something we
should leave aside for today's purposes.
My second duty is to speak to Amendment 1 in my name on the
Marshalled List. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of
Cotes, and , a Member of Parliament in
the other place, for the amendments they have tabled on this
issue, and their engagement with myself and officials in this
area. The amendment concerns what to do when there is a malicious
complaint to social services and the procedure for removing that
complaint, following the conviction of the complainant and the
finding that the complaint was malicious.
Amendment 1 will insert into Article 17(1) of the GDPR—in fact,
it inserts it into the relevant European directive so we have an
unusual example of the UK Government directly amending European
legislation—a new Part 2 ground which creates the right for
certain victims who are data subjects to request deletion of
personal data when the following two circumstances occur: first,
when an allegation has been made by a person who has been
convicted of relevant criminal offence against the data subject,
or the person is subject to a stalking protection order made to
protect the data subject from a risk associated with stalking;
secondly, following an investigation by the data controller, it
has been decided that no further action has to be taken in
relation to the allegation.
The relevant criminal offences listed in the amendment are the
offences of stalking and harassment against a victim. A power is
also taken to update this list by regulations made using the
affirmative procedure, should further offences be required to be
included in the future. This amendment will provide a specific
new ground for victims of stalking and harassment for the
deletion of false allegations made about them, and support them
to prevent the further distress that retaining this information
may cause.
To ensure that the data controller has an important reason to
retain the data, the exemptions under Article 17(3) of the UK
GDPR will apply. This allows the data controller to refuse the re
quest for a limited list of reasons, including whether processing
is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation or the
performance of a task carried out in the public interest, which
could capture refusal for safeguarding reasons. However, data
controllers must provide reasons for any refusal and inform data
subjects of their right to complain to the Information
Commissioner's Office. We will ensure that guidance, including on
child safeguarding, is updated so data controllers understand how
the new ground is intended to work. We will also update the
victims' code so that victims are aware of their rights around
data erasure.
I therefore commend this amendment to the House, and I hope that
what I have said will permit the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, not
to press her Amendment 2 on the marshalled list.
of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this very important Bill.
I am delighted that it covers so many vital issues and will
proceed, we hope, to Royal Assent before Parliament is
prorogued.
I shall speak to Amendments 1 and 2. I thank my noble friends the
Minister and Lady Barran, and their officials, for their
engagement on this matter at some speed. I am delighted that
is here to listen to the
debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, my noble friend
Lady Finn and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for their support, as
well as the Opposition Front Bench.
Politics is the “art of the possible”, as the important quote
goes. The Government have now accepted, after resisting for many
months, the principle behind Amendment 2, which we repeatedly
tabled in this House at various stages of the Bill. As we have
heard, the law should be updated to recognise that, in cases of
stalking and harassment, one of the things that the stalker or
harasser can do to prolong their victim's agony is to make a
false and malicious allegation which stays on the record, and
data controllers hide behind their rights in not deleting it even
when the allegation has been found to be both false and
malicious.
I recognise the progress that has been made in the tabling of
Amendment 1. As ever, of course, the devil is in the detail. As
my noble and learned friend has said, there are still
grounds under Article 17(3) of the GDPR on which a data
controller could refuse to delete the data. I really welcome his
clear commitment that there needs to be strong guidance to the
ICO and data controllers in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill,
and also provisions in the victims' code. The danger with all
this is that we still leave the burden on victims to argue for
the data to be erased, and the power remains with the data
controller. That is what worries me about those exemptions in
Article 17(3).
In that guidance, the data controller must be told that they need
to set out substantive grounds for refusing any request for
erasure of the data. We also hope that the Government will set
out scenarios in which those exemptions in Article 17(3),
provided for in law, cannot be used in cases where data records
have been created as a result of malicious conduct.
Having said all that, I recognise where we are at this time in
this Parliament. I will be interested to hear what other noble
Lords might say in this short debate and what the Minister might
say in summing up. I recognise and thank my noble and learned
friend for the progress that he has made on this issue.
(CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I pay tribute to the noble
Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her persistence and skills in
negotiating with her own party, which is possibly easier than
doing it from outside the party.
I stress the absolute importance of giving crystal clear
guidance. The occupation of data controller is not necessarily
high on the list of most of us as a potential career. I suspect
that it is not the most exciting part of many bureaucracies. I
also suspect that it is an area where one follows the rulebook,
or what one perceives to be the rulebook, particularly closely. I
suspect that the ability of individuals to feel that they have
the power to exercise their own judgment is somewhat limited and
probably not encouraged. It is incredibly important that there is
absolutely no doubt in the mind of even the least curious or the
most obdurate data controller as to what is and is not acceptable
in terms of erasure.
Other than that, I thank the Government for having thought about
this carefully, and for having responded. I hope that as a result
of this, the data controller in Waltham Forest who is making
Stella Creasy's life rather difficult will at least read this
debate or be told of it and will rethink his or her decision to
not erase the data.
(LD)
It is my privilege to follow both the noble Lord, Lord Russell,
and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I signed this amendment and
continue to offer my support. I echo and agree with everything
they said.
I have slight concerns that this is not just an issue about the
data controller; it is also about social work practice. That
really worries me, because there is a mindset that says that if
anyone makes a complaint, we have to have it on the record just
in case for the future. I hope that the government amendments are
sufficient to provide an answer, but should we discover either
that Stella Creasy's case is not dealt with or that there are
others, I put all future Governments on notice that there is a
team in this House that will return to the subject.
(Lab)
I will make just one point to the Minister: will the direction
and guidance given to the data controller say that the
information being found to be vexatious will be an automatic
reason to delete it? As soon as something is found not to be
true, it should be deleted and the data controller should have
the obligation to remove it straightaway.
(Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment. Congratulations all round are
due to the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan, Lady Finn and Lady
Brinton, and the Ministers. I take issue with what the noble
Lord, Lord Russell, said: negotiating with your own party is
every bit as challenging as negotiating from outside—I speak from
experience—but this is a very good example of the point of the
House of Lords. When we do this sort of work, we can take an
issue that is clearly an injustice, as my honourable friend
has experienced, along with
others—mostly women—and persuade the Government to take action.
That is the right thing to have done.
1.45pm
(Con)
My Lords, there is little I can add. In preparing the guidance,
the Government will take into account all the points,
particularly those made by my noble friend Lady Morgan. The word
“automatic” may be a slightly difficult word in the guidance, but
I anticipate that it will be made extremely clear that in these
circumstances the data controller would have to provide very
clear reasons for not deleting the complaint concerned. I hope
that will be covered comprehensively in government guidance,
whichever Government are in power.
Amendment 1 agreed.
Amendment 2 not moved.
1.46pm
Motion
Moved by
That the Bill do now pass.
(Con)
My Lords, certain noble Lords wish to speak to this Motion.
(LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise some
issues that have arisen since the publication of the framework
and tariffs for the new infected blood compensation scheme on
Tuesday afternoon. I thank the noble Earl and for providing the details to make
that possible, and the usual channels for ensuring that the work
done so far is not lost but carried through.
However, over the last 24 hours, we have heard from a substantial
number of members of the infected blood community who are
distraught by the detail that has come out in the framework and
tariffs, which seem to be at complete odds with the schemes that
have gone before. I have a long shopping list of over 20 points;
I will not detain the House with them, but I forwarded them to
the Minister in advance of this debate. I will raise two or three
as illustrations.
Under the new framework, there will be no distinction between
chronic hepatitis B and C in calculating infection. There is no
consistency about other diseases; for example, variant CJD has
been left out of the new scheme but was included in the old one,
as has Hodgkin lymphoma and possibly other cancers. Many people
believe that the Government's proposals still mean that the
current schemes will be closed down, leaving them worse off, and
that the Government have an incentive to wait longer to pay
compensation. They need great reassurance and clarity that that
will not be the case, because that is not evident in what was
published on Tuesday afternoon.
Can the Government provide a breakdown of how the core route
awards examples have been calculated? That would be helpful, even
if only to say that there will be further information published
online. There are concerns about the illustrative awards being
worded as
“for a living infected person”
and not simply an “infected person”. Given that your Lordships'
House has debated a great deal of the wonderful news that estates
will also be able to claim, does that mean that estates will be
excluded from this part of the scheme?
Noble Lords can see that there is a lot of detail here. A
community that thought, on Tuesday morning, that everything was
going to be all right are now very concerned that there are a
large number of anomalies that need to be corrected. I will not
go on, except to say that I am really grateful for all the help
that the Minister has given, and I hope that he can provide some
reassurance.
(CB)
My Lords, I will be brief because I know that time is of the
essence. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for
her sterling work on this Bill. She has given great comfort and
strength, as well as enormous amounts of information, to the
infected blood community, so that they can keep up with what we
have been doing in this House up until today. She is right that
there is now confusion in the community.
At the end of a very long day on Monday, I had thought that I
might just get a day off, but by Tuesday my phone was ringing off
the hook, and I became a helpline to many in the infected blood
community who have the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady
Brinton, just described. I urge the Minister to give a little
more clarity, if he can today, so that we can go back and
continue to give reassurances to a community that has been
campaigning and working towards this week for probably 35 years.
I thank the Minister for his open door, because we have been
going in and out of it for weeks. I, for one, really appreciate
his support and help.
of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I add the thanks of these Benches to the Ministers—the
noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord
Bellamy—and the Bill team as a whole for the way they have
handled the Bill. It has been a real example of co-operation and
cross-party help, leading to a number of amendments, not only on
this particular issue but on all the issues that we have faced.
We have not always reached agreement and there have been
Divisions; nevertheless, I think everybody here agrees that the
Bill will leave this House much improved.
I also very much wish to associate these Benches with everything
that has been said by my noble friend Lady Brinton, speaking from
these Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton.
I pay tribute to the noble Earl for the way he has handled the
infected blood issue, particularly by meeting with the community
and noble Lords in a way that has been utterly helpful and
completely sympathetic. We all know that it has devoured an
enormous amount of his time, and we all respect and admire the
care he has given to handling this issue. I hope that he will be
able to give the reassurance today—to my noble friend Lady
Brinton, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and the House—that is
sought by the infected blood community; it would be a great
relief to them.
Many of us had telephone calls yesterday in which extreme concern
was expressed about what was happening in view of the calling of
the general election, the fear that the Bill might be lost and
that further improvements or reassurance on the scheme might not
be possible. I add that it would have been a crying shame if this
Bill had been lost and had not got through the wash-up. That
seemed a real problem yesterday; there was concern that it would
happen. It has got through, and for that we are extremely
grateful.
It is also a great shame that the Arbitration Bill and the
Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill look as if
they are under threat. That is ridiculous. The Arbitration Bill
is a Law Commission Bill. It has to start in the House of Lords,
it went through a long Special Public Bill Committee procedure,
ably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and
there is no opposition to it. Similarly, the Litigation Funding
Agreements (Enforceability) Bill has no opposition. These are two
Bills important to the British economy because of the
contribution that the legal services sector makes to it as a
whole. For the progress of those Bills to Royal Assent before
Prorogation to be stymied by an absurd convention that, if it has
not already been introduced in the other House, a Bill will
necessarily fail, is wrong. In those circumstances, I profoundly
hope that the Whips in the Commons can come to an agreement. As I
understand it, there is all-round agreement in the Lords that
these Bills should go through. They must be taken through, just
as this Bill has been taken through.
We are very grateful that this Bill has gone through. However, if
the other Bills that are non-controversial and agreed cannot get
through, the procedure on the wash-up needs a radical
shake-up.
(Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, , has absolutely nailed it, and I
absolutely agree with him about the Arbitration Bill, although my
pay grade is much too low to do anything about any of those
things.
This is one of those times when we are allowed to say “Thank you”
and “Didn't we do well?” Thank goodness we have this Bill and
that it did not fall with the call of the general election.
Between us in this House, we have improved the deal for victims
across the country. We have given powers to our Victims'
Commissioner which she needs to do her job. I thank everybody we
have worked with: my noble friend , who is of course in court
today—I do not think he has done anything wrong—the noble
Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, , and the ministerial team. The
noble and learned Lord, , has been a model of what you
need in a Minister in your Lordships' House in that he is always
prepared to listen, to discuss and to hear what might be needed,
and when something is just, he seems to be able to act on it. You
cannot ask for much more than that. I thank the Bill team,
because I know what hard work it is to be a Bill team. I also
thank my own people in our office, who have been backing us up on
this Bill. I am just very glad that it has made it through
wash-up.
(CB)
I will briefly add two sentences. In respect of the provisions
dealing with the Parole Board and the IPP parts of the Bill, I
pay a special tribute to the Lord Chancellor and Minister for
Justice, and—although I know he will disclaim any
responsibility—the Minister in this House. It has been a great
pleasure to see the way in which, although we do not agree on
everything, we have made huge reforms to the IPP system, and for
that we all ought to be truly grateful.
Speaking of what the noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Thornton, said, it is of the utmost importance that we should
find a means—I do not believe it is precluded by precedent—of at
least getting the Arbitration Bill forward, for all the reasons
that he put forward. However, I pay tribute to the Minister on
that Bill as well—he has worked so hard on it—and to the teams on
both Bills for what they have done.
2.00pm
(Con)
It is not the Oscars ceremony, but I just wanted to agree with
the noble and learned Lord, , and the noble
Lord, , in relation to the Arbitration
Bill. I am precluded by the rules of the House from mentioning
the other, uncontentious piece of legislation—but I quietly agree
with him.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I just want to say that it is the Victims and Prisoners
Bill and it is very important that we acknowledge the work that
has been achieved for IPP prisoners. I thank the team for that.
Even though I wanted it to go further, I understand when progress
has been made.
The noble and learned Lord, , will not mind me saying that
the noble Lord, , and the noble Earl, Lord
Howe, have also been very receptive and very helpful. For the
first time since I have been here, I have had meetings with
officials—it has all felt very grown up—in which I felt that they
were listening and that things were being done. So, on this Bill
at least, I felt that it was a very constructive engagement. Even
though sometimes we have to be antagonistic and critical of the
Government and the Front Bench, because they do not do exactly
what we want them to do, that does not mean that we do not
appreciate the work that has gone on and goes on. I for one will
now be contacting the IPP prisoners who, like the people who have
been mentioned in relation to the blood scandal, have been, with
their families, contacting me all night, saying, “Please don't
let this drop”. Leaseholders are less happy, but that is a
different story. Anyway, in this instance, I say thank you on
behalf of both victims and prisoners.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend , the ministerial team and
everybody across the Chamber from different teams. It has been
heartwarming to see everybody trying to get the best result for
victims and their families and make sure that the system
understands what their journey is about. I also thank the Bill
team, whom I have worked with not just on this Bill but as
Victims' Commissioner. I am very proud to be able to work my way
round in that role as well.
Most importantly, it was not very nice to have “victims and
prisoners” on the Bill, but we are where we are. However, to
understand what victims go through is very important. I give huge
congratulations on not throwing the baby out with the bath-water
in all the politics. This is about people and this legislation is
so important. It is a driver for getting other things on to it,
whoever gets into power. It is important never to forget that
victims have a voice and that voice must always be listened to.
That is, as legislators, how we make legislation far better as it
goes through these Houses.
I thank the ministerial team and everybody else who has joined in
support of these amendments.
(Con)
My Lords, mindful that this is somewhat exceptional procedure at
this stage of a Bill's passage, I shall first address the points
and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to whom
I am grateful for the opportunity to provide some clarity on
various aspects of the infected blood compensation scheme.
On Monday, as the House is aware, the infected blood inquiry
published its final report. By any standards, this was a very
significant day. As the Prime Minister said, the report shows a
decades-long moral failure at the heart of our national life. So
the importance of ensuring that we provide a clear commitment
from all sides of the House, as I believe there is, on doing what
is right for the infected and affected victims, cannot be
overstated. We must progress this legislation and we must
continue to engage with the infected blood community on the
details of the proposed scheme, ahead of those details being set
in regulation. I hope that all parties join me in that
sentiment.
I turning to the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness,
Lady Brinton. On the issue of interim payments, I reassure her
that this legislation still provides for the duty of interim
payments to the estates of deceased infected people where
payments were not previously received. In addition, a further
interim payment of £210,000 is being made to living infected
persons in recognition that this will meet the needs of those
most likely to be disadvantaged by the passage of time. This
payment will be delivered separately by the infected blood
support schemes.
The Government are working to deliver these payments to the
living infected as a matter of urgency. This morning, the
Department of Health and Social Care laid a Written Ministerial
Statement to seek a contingencies fund advance to make these
payments in England and the Minister for the Cabinet Office met
the relevant Health Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland to discuss these operational details. We are working with
the devolved Administrations to make these payments swiftly
across the UK and I am assured that we share a joint
determination to make them as swiftly as possible. Once we have
finalised the process with the devolved Administrations, those
due to receive these payments will receive details of the date of
payment directly from the infected blood support scheme that they
are registered with. All interim compensation payments will be
deducted from any final payment.
The noble Baroness raised questions on the definition of
hepatitis C and related matters. In line with the recommendations
of the infected blood inquiry, those infected with hepatitis C
will be eligible for compensation, and this includes those whose
infection lasted less than six months and those whose infection
became chronic—by which we mean it lasted more than six months.
Those who had a chronic hepatitis infection that has now cleared
as a result of successful treatment will still be eligible to
claim compensation.
On the questions that the noble Baroness raised on how the core
route has been calculated and the other conditions which indicate
hepatitis C progression, let me reassure her that, as announced
by the Minister for the Cabinet Office in another place, Sir
Robert Francis will now conduct an engagement exercise with the
community before regulations to establish the scheme are made,
and further details on that will be released shortly.
The noble Baroness also asked why the illustrative tables provide
figures for living infected persons only. This is because awards
in relation to deceased persons with an infection have a much
greater degree of variability depending, for example, on the
duration of their illness before they passed away. Publishing an
illustrative table for deceased persons, given that awards will
differ quite markedly depending on individual circumstances,
would not be very helpful.
Compensation with regard to a deceased individual will be
distributed to the estate, as the noble Baroness mentioned, and
bereaved partners and other affected dependants. The Government
are also providing a technical briefing with key representatives
of the infected blood community to explain the Government's
proposals, as set out on GOV.UK, and I am confident that will be
a useful discussion.
The noble Baroness asked a further question about financial loss
incurred by affected dependants of a deceased infected person.
Where an infected person has, sadly, died, those who were reliant
on them at the time of their death—for example, a partner or
child under 18—will receive a financial loss award under the
scheme to recognise this loss. On the duration of the blood
support schemes, let me reassure the noble Baroness that the
establishment of the scheme will not have any immediate impact on
the support payments received through the infected blood support
schemes and there will be no gap in the payments provided to
beneficiaries.
The support schemes are delivered separately in England, Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland and decisions on individual schemes
will be for the devolved Administrations. No one will be worse
off under the final compensation scheme than they would have been
under existing support schemes. However, the infected blood
compensation scheme will compensate for both past and future
losses suffered as a result of infected blood.
Once assessed under the scheme, the applicant will be able to
choose how to receive their compensation, as either a lump sum or
periodic payments. This means that those who value the security
of a regular payment will be able to receive compensation in this
way. I hope that clarification is helpful.
In the event that the infected blood compensation authority
assesses that a person is entitled to less compensation through
the compensation scheme than would otherwise have been paid to
them through continued infected blood support scheme payments, an
additional top-up payment will be provided to bring the
compensation they receive up to the level of the support
payments. Any top-up payment awarded will take into account other
compensation payments that a person has received through the
scheme, either in their own right or as an estate beneficiary.
This will ensure that no one will receive less compensation
through the compensation scheme than they would have received
through the payments to which they would otherwise have been
entitled through existing support schemes.
I hope my words have provided reassurance to the noble Baroness,
and, more widely, to the infected blood community, many of whom
have followed the passage of this legislation with close
attention. As we have seen throughout the passage of the Bill,
and following the announcements this week, there is cross-party
agreement to progress work on infected blood, and the Government
will continue to deliver what was set out on Tuesday.
As we reach the concluding stages of the Victims and Prisoners
Bill, I express my gratitude, and that of my noble and learned
friend and my noble friend , to noble Lords on all
sides of the House for their amendments, engagement and
collaboration throughout the passage of this Bill. Through its
stages in this place, between us we have made vital changes to
strengthen code compliance measures for victims, establish the
body to pay compensation to victims of the infected blood
scandal, and bring forward a package of reforms for those
sentenced to imprisonment for public protection sentences. I am
confident that the Bill leaves this House as a package that truly
delivers for victims and the public.
In expressing my thanks to noble Lords, I am mindful of the
difficulty of singling out colleagues by name, but I extend
particular thanks to the Victims' Commissioner, my noble friend
Lady Newlove, whose expertise has been vital throughout these
stages.
Lastly, I express my deep gratitude, and that of my noble and
learned friend and my noble friend , to members of the Bill
team and all officials in the Cabinet Office, whose hard work and
professionalism have been exemplary. Were it not contrary to
custom and practice, I would mention them by name.
This is important legislation, and I am pleased that it will make
it to the end of its parliamentary passage ahead of Dissolution.
I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
|
