Infected blood victims still waiting for compensation

[Fishnut]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned before but a search hasn't turned up anything.

Background
For those unaware, in the 1970s and 80s a large number of people were infected with hepatitis C and HIV as a result of blood transfusions they received through the NHS. Most had haemophilia and received clotting factors. These clotting factors came from the US, predominantly from commercial paid-donor donations. Many of these donors were intravenous drug users and these donations (as many a 60,000 per batch) were pooled and mixed prior to being sold to countries around the world, including the UK.

It is unclear exactly how many people have been infected and died as a result of this. The wikipedia page says around 1,250 people were infected with HIV of whom around 75% have died, and at least 2,400 were infected with Hepatitis C and around 30% have died. Over 8,000 have been chronically infected with Hepatitis C ten years or more after the contaminated transfusions.

Public Inquiry
There have been a series of investigations and a public inquiry began in July 2018 and is chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff.

As part of the inquiry, Sir Robert Francis published a compensation framework study last year that detailed how compensation scheme should work.

As part of an interim report published in April, Sir Brian said that bereaved parents and children of victims should receive receive £100,000 interim compensation payments and that the compensation scheme should be set up as soon as possible rather than wait for the final report. Yet the government is ignoring these recommendations, and is refusing to commit to a time-frame for a compensation scheme to be established.

Latest News
Sunak appeared at the inquiry today and faced jeers and heckling when he tried to defend the government's response to the recommendations of the inquiry.

There are legitimate fears that the government is trying to run out the clock on this,

[Jenni Richards KC] said there were fears that the government’s position of waiting for the final inquiry report was an excuse for delay, adding at that point the inquiry would no longer have powers.

These people have been screwed over so many times and it looks like their quest for justice is far from over.

[snoozeofreason]

It's completely shocking that the government should be dragging its feet on this. I feel about it rather the same way as I do about the sub-postmasters scandal. It's something that ought to be on the news every evening and yet it seems to go under the radar.

I can see that the absence of any replies to your post might make it look as if it was going under the radar even on Scrutable. I think, however, that the silence is because your initial post summed up the situation so well that it's difficult to add anything.

[jimbob]

It's completely shocking that the government should be dragging its feet on this. I feel about it rather the same way as I do about the sub-postmasters scandal. It's something that ought to be on the news every evening and yet it seems to go under the radar.

I can see that the absence of any replies to your post might make it look as if it was going under the radar even on Scrutable. I think, however, that the silence is because your initial post summed up the situation so well that it's difficult to add anything.

It's not even saving much money.

Which is just insult to injury

[snoozeofreason]

It's not even saving much money.

Which is just insult to injury

That's another feature it shares with the subpostmasters scandal. In both cases I'm baffled by the effort that various authorities are devoting to an attempt to put themselves on the wrong side of history, even though the alternative path would cost very little. Anyone sensible would be throwing money at both issues in an attempt to make them go away, or at least reduce their salience. It just makes it look as if the whole thing is being driven by people who not only can't see the morality of the issue, but are also incapable of recognising where their own best interests lie.

[jimbob]

It's not even saving much money.

Which is just insult to injury

That's another feature it shares with the subpostmasters scandal. In both cases I'm baffled by the effort that various authorities are devoting to an attempt to put themselves on the wrong side of history, even though the alternative path would cost very little. Anyone sensible would be throwing money at both issues in an attempt to make them go away, or at least reduce their salience. It just makes it look as if the whole thing is being driven by people who not only can't see the morality of the issue, but are also incapable of recognising where their own best interests lie.

Exactly.

Also the nuclear test veterans and Portion Down test victims. Although the last was actually worse.

[IvanV]

It's not even saving much money.

Which is just insult to injury

That's another feature it shares with the subpostmasters scandal. In both cases I'm baffled by the effort that various authorities are devoting to an attempt to put themselves on the wrong side of history, even though the alternative path would cost very little. Anyone sensible would be throwing money at both issues in an attempt to make them go away, or at least reduce their salience. It just makes it look as if the whole thing is being driven by people who not only can't see the morality of the issue, but are also incapable of recognising where their own best interests lie.

And another one like that is asylum seekers. It would be in their own interest to process their cases quickly, but they seem incapable of doing so, even though apparently they want to.

I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy.

Part of the trouble, I suspect, is inflexible processes, which are made even more inflexible if they are contracted out and written into the contracts. They define a rigorous process, which in practice you can't actually easily complete. People don't want to be caught with their pants down having made shortcuts. So they are completist, which can take a long time. Or, if they can't complete to the required evidential standards within a time period, "computer says no". So progress is slow because in practice most applications can't be quickly completed to the defined unreasonably high standards.

And this type of inflexible process is normalised, because there are plenty of areas where slow admin and lots of "computer says no" are actually convenient to the government, which doesn't mind operating a hostile environment in areas like benefit payments, disability, non-asylum immigration, etc. So these kinds of process get widely spread.

[jimbob]

It's not even saving much money.

Which is just insult to injury

That's another feature it shares with the subpostmasters scandal. In both cases I'm baffled by the effort that various authorities are devoting to an attempt to put themselves on the wrong side of history, even though the alternative path would cost very little. Anyone sensible would be throwing money at both issues in an attempt to make them go away, or at least reduce their salience. It just makes it look as if the whole thing is being driven by people who not only can't see the morality of the issue, but are also incapable of recognising where their own best interests lie.

And another one like that is asylum seekers. It would be in their own interest to process their cases quickly, but they seem incapable of doing so, even though apparently they want to.

I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy.

Part of the trouble, I suspect, is inflexible processes, which are made even more inflexible if they are contracted out and written into the contracts. They define a rigorous process, which in practice you can't actually easily complete. People don't want to be caught with their pants down having made shortcuts. So they are completist, which can take a long time. Or, if they can't complete to the required evidential standards within a time period, "computer says no". So progress is slow because in practice most applications can't be quickly completed to the defined unreasonably high standards.

And this type of inflexible process is normalised, because there are plenty of areas where slow admin and lots of "computer says no" are actually convenient to the government, which doesn't mind operating a hostile environment in areas like benefit payments, disability, non-asylum immigration, etc. So these kinds of process get widely spread.

I disagree with the first paragraph. This has helped shore up Tory support amongst the xenophobes. The Tories have been able to portray themselves as being tough, and Labour as being on the side of illegal immigrants (which the Tories have successfully conflated with refugees - face it, anyone from Syria or Afghanistan, as long as they aren't from the regime or a terrorist group, should probably be accepted on the grounds that the persecution is so clear.