IBCA Accountability Moves to the Lords — Is the Community Being Pushed Further Away?

By The Unheard Voice

The infected blood community has spent decades fighting to be heard. Now, just as serious questions are mounting over delayed claims, deceased estates, missing medical records and unequal compensation, ministerial responsibility for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority could be moved to a minister sitting in the House of Lords.

So, what does that actually mean—and why is the community concerned?

IBCA itself is not being transferred to the House of Lords. It will remain the arm’s-length public body responsible for delivering the compensation scheme. What could change is the minister who holds political responsibility for overseeing IBCA and answering for its performance.

That distinction matters.

A minister sitting in the House of Lords cannot appear at the House of Commons despatch box to answer questions directly from MPs. MPs will still be able to submit written questions, secure debates, raise individual cases and question officials through parliamentary committees. However, another Commons minister may have to answer on behalf of the minister who actually holds the brief.

That risks creating yet another layer between the infected blood community, its elected representatives and the person ultimately responsible.

When a minister answers questions in the Commons, MPs can immediately challenge an unclear or incomplete response. If the responsible minister sits in the Lords, will Commons MPs be left questioning somebody who does not personally control the brief?

More importantly, is this an isolated administrative change—or part of a much wider and increasingly concerning move away from the community?

IBCA has now announced that it will publish compensation and registration figures monthly instead of fortnightly. Its final fortnightly report was published on 27 August, but the first monthly report will not appear until 8 October.

That means a longer period during which victims, families, campaigners and Parliament cannot see whether claims are progressing—or stalling.

IBCA says monthly reporting will provide a fuller picture and make progress easier to understand. However, less frequent reporting inevitably means less frequent scrutiny. At a time when thousands remain outside the claims process, the community needs greater visibility, not longer gaps between updates.

We are also hearing serious concerns from peer supporters that questions raised on behalf of community members are no longer being answered in the way they once were.

Peer supporters are not an inconvenience standing between IBCA and claimants. They are often the people helping those who are seriously ill, traumatised, grieving, overwhelmed or unable to navigate an increasingly complicated process alone.

When peer supporters ask questions, they are frequently giving a voice to people who cannot fight through another layer of bureaucracy themselves.

Closing down that dialogue does not make those questions disappear. It simply removes one of the routes through which vulnerable people can be heard.

IBCA’s September community update thanks people for their feedback and says their questions help improve the publication. Yet the “Your questions” section answers only two general questions: whether friends, relatives or support organisations can help during a claim, and when supplementary claims may begin.

Those may be useful answers, but where are the responses to the most urgent questions being raised across the community?

Where are the answers about deceased estates?

Where are the answers about destroyed or missing medical records?

Where is the clarity about evidence thresholds and the basis of probability?

Where are the answers for families facing probate barriers?

Where is the recognition for the people who actually provided years of unpaid care?

Where are the answers about psychological harm, unequal compensation and the thousands of people still waiting?

Any one of these changes might be presented as administrative. Taken together, however, they reveal a deeply worrying direction:

Less frequent publication of compensation figures.

Peer supporters struggling to obtain answers.

Ministerial responsibility potentially moving away from the elected House of Commons.

Important community questions remaining unanswered.

Decisions increasingly being announced after they have already been made.

It feels like another layer is being placed between the community and those responsible for delivering justice.

The Infected Blood Inquiry recommended a formal mechanism through which community concerns could be raised and answered. IBCA has repeatedly said that the views of infected and affected people are central to the design and delivery of its service.

But listening is not simply collecting feedback, commissioning research or holding occasional drop-in events.

Listening means answering difficult questions.

It means allowing those answers to be challenged.

It means showing how community evidence has influenced decisions.

It means remaining accountable when the answers are uncomfortable.

IBCA is also preparing to take on even greater responsibility. During early 2027, responsibility for making regular support payments will transfer from the four existing infected blood support schemes to IBCA.

That makes transparency and direct engagement more important than ever.

Why, at the very moment IBCA’s responsibilities are expanding, does visibility appear to be reducing and meaningful dialogue becoming harder?

The Government must now provide a clear public explanation:

Has the transfer of ministerial responsibility been formally confirmed?

Which minister will hold responsibility for IBCA and the compensation scheme?

Which Commons minister will answer questions from elected MPs?

Who should community organisations and peer supporters approach?

Why are questions raised by peer supporters reportedly no longer receiving proper answers?

How will urgent follow-up questions be handled?

Will the responsible minister meet directly with infected and affected people, including families of the deceased?

How will accountability to the House of Commons—and therefore to the public—be protected?

The infected blood community was ignored, dismissed and kept in the dark for decades. That history means any retreat from openness will inevitably damage the little trust that remains.

This is not about opposing change for the sake of it. It is about ensuring that every change brings the community closer to justice rather than pushing it further away.

The name above the ministerial office may change. The reporting schedule may change. The communication structure may change.

But the questions do not disappear—and neither does the Government’s duty to answer them.

Accountability should be moving closer to victims and families, not further away.

So we ask again: what is happening—and why does the community feel as though another door is quietly being closed?

— The Unheard Voice