Good morning. On Monday, after Sir Brian Langstaff’s devastating report on the infected blood scandal was published, Rishi Sunak promised “comprehensive compensation”, and said: “Whatever it costs to deliver this scheme, we will pay it.” Yesterday, the government set out what that commitment would mean in practice , starting with an additional £210,000 interim payment for victims, with final payments expected before the end of the year that could rise to £2.
7m for a single victim. Estimates for what that will cost in total run to about £10bn. But even if the compensation is an essential step towards vindication, the very act of putting a figure on it also emphasises how impossible it is to capture the extent of such suffering.
A figure for loss of earnings is one thing – but how do you work out a fair sum for a disease that will eventually kill you, or the death of a child, or years of being misled by the state? Dr Sonia Macleod, a research fellow at Oxford University’s Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, has been thinking about these questions for a long time: she co-wrote a major study comparing personal injury compensation schemes, and advised Sir Robert Francis, the author of the compensation framework report that formed the basis for the government’s proposals. For today’s newsletter, I asked her how she thinks about translating demands for justice into financial awards – and what else is necessary to give victims a sense of closure. Here are the headl.