Once again, this has been an excellent debate. It has been excellent in tone and excellent in terms of hon. and right hon. Members speaking about their constituents. I will try to deal with some of the issues, but there will be others, particularly issues of detail, that I will address if Members write to me.

I congratulate Pete Wishart on his work as the able deputy for my hon. Friend Clive Efford on the all-party parliamentary group. The 1986 date is simply because the last medical study identified as unethical by Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry was from 1984. The date goes forward a bit to try to ensure that we capture everything; that is the significance of the date. He and I have had the discussion about interferon during the debate some weeks ago. I agree with him and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, Ian Sollom, on the duty of candour. It is hugely important that we drive that forward.

If my hon. Friend Tom Hayes could, will he send me that list of questions about his late constituent, Jane Fitzgerald? I just make one observation: there is a difference for those who have died versus those who are living, but I point out that money gets paid to dependants in the first circumstance, which should be taken into account. I will come back to him in detail if he sends me those questions.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst for his work. I agree with him on the sympathetic approach to evidence, on the importance of the ongoing dialogue and certainly on the importance of speed. I could not agree more with the Shadow Minister, Mike Wood, about clear communication; it is something that I speak about frequently, and I will continue to do so. On the review mechanism, people can ask IBCA for a review. Beyond that, they have the option of a first-tier tribunal and, beyond that, the courts. The initial stage is a review by IBCA. Although IBCA is operationally independent, I entirely agree with his point about me being available to offer appropriate support where necessary. The bulk of infected people should be paid by the end of 2027 and the bulk of affected people by the end of 2029. However, those are backstops, not targets. As I have often said to the House, the aim is to speed up those claims and get to that point of exponential growth in payments of the affected claims.

The point about care was raised by Sir Julian Lewis and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. The care award is not paid directly to the person who provided care simply because if we did that, we would be asking IBCA to determine who provided the care and to go to affected people for evidence that they provided care. We could even end up with IBCA having to mediate disputes between multiple people talking about care. Going down that particular route could have led to further delays, and that is why we have taken the approach that we have.

It is absolutely right that these regulations reflect the Majority of what we heard in the consultation and that we do make changes. The regulations complete the Government’s response to the additional report, but as Members across the House have said, the hard work to deliver the compensation must now accelerate. It is our duty to remember the tragedy inflicted on thousands of people and to bring real change not just to this compensation scheme, but beyond that, and not least to the duty of candour, which is another of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. I hope that colleagues across the House will join me this evening in supporting these regulations. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 18 June, be approved.