Infected Blood Inquiry

Debate between Jim Shannon and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

There is no one in the House more experienced than the right hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to what he did in government and how he brought this issue forward. He is right; we must be a bit careful, but all of us involved are just trying to take the debate forward. He is possibly right that there may be satisfaction that things have moved on and we are at a different stage in the campaign, but it is still important that we continue to ask questions of Government. That is what we are all trying to do in this debate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will, so long as the hon. Member does not poke me in the back, as he did the other evening.

[Jim Shannon]

My constituent has mentioned an outstanding issue that must be addressed. Current proposals only include siblings who were under the age 18 and lived in the same household as an infected person for at least two years after the onset of the infection. The requirement for siblings to have lived in the same house should be removed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the loss and suffering of a sibling who did not live in the same household for two years is no less than that of a sibling who did?

[Pete Wishart]

I do, and I am happy that my speech has provided the hon. Gentleman with another opportunity to make one of his interventions, as he does in practically every debate that he attends. He makes a good point, which the House has now heard.

I want to reinforce the point about IBCA’s arm’s length process. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst is right that it is abundantly clear, in both the interim and the full report, that there is a general expectation that IBCA will be truly at arm’s length, divorced and separate from the Government. We cannot get into the head of Sir Brian Langstaff when he designed the scheme, but I think that he expected there to be a proper arm’s length body that would be responsible to Parliament, not Government. What we have is the other way around, and that will probably be okay, but for extra security, those of us who are interested would like to make sure that it is properly independent, according to Sir Brian Langstaff’s original intention.

As long as there is a sense that this is a Government-influenced body, there will be continuing suspicions—from a community that has been let down so badly for decades by decision makers and Government—that this is the same old approach that we have seen in the past. I ask the Minister to find a way to ensure that we get that proper judge-led, arm’s length body that is responsible to us as the representatives of the people of the United Kingdom, and not just exclusively to Government. I have no issue with all the tributes that people have made to David Foley and all the other people involved, because they have been fantastic, but we are already beginning to see Cabinet Office-based appointments coming through for IBCA. Again, we are not really seeing consultation with those at the sharp end of all this. We need some more of that.

Sir Brian Langstaff said that two expert panels—one representing the legal parts of the issues, and the other the health parts—would work almost simultaneously and in concert with each other, to feed back to the chair of the board. It would be good to see that starting to emerge. He also said—not as clearly, but it was intended—that an expert panel would comprise those representing the community, both the infected and the affected. They would have a similar role to feed into the chair of IBCA. I hope that some of that will happen.

There is widespread support for what this Government have done, and £11.8 billion is a significant sum that everyone is confident will go most of the way towards meeting the compensation expectations, but there are issues. Members have touched on some of them. I will rattle through them—I do not want to detain the House and I have raised them before—but I just want to make sure that we do touch on them.

The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst is absolutely right that the £15,000 for those caught up in unethical research is far too low. This is coming back to all of us again, so I really hope we are able to revisit that. Then there are those who were treated with interferon as a matter of course. They have not been properly and fully included in the compensation scheme, so again I hope the Government are able to look at that. There is concern that hepatitis C payment bandings do not match and reflect the suffering caused. That is what I have been hearing from constituents involved in the campaign, so I hope the Government will be able to look at that.

There is the issue about bereaved parents and children, who will receive very low compensation payments if they are not the beneficiary of the estate of bereaved family members. I think that could be addressed. No compensation has been paid to siblings for their loss and suffering if they were over 18. Compensation for lack of earnings should consider future career progression that was prevented from occurring, rather than simply existing careers that were cut short. Lastly on my list, which is not long but is substantial, is the fact that the need for a date of infection is causing a great deal of anxiety and confusion among the community.

I believe that most of those issues could be properly addressed with the full involvement of community representatives if they have full and open access to Government Ministers and are able to play their part in designing any future schemes. The community should be involved to provide valuable information and advice on the most pressing issues that need to be addressed.

One issue that I want to turn to in the bulk of my remarks is the part of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that has probably received the least attention thus far: the “why” of all this. Why did this happen? Why were we misled for such a long time? We have had useful discussions about compensation and it is great to see that progress, but unless we explore and examine the reasons why it happened, we will not learn all that much as we go forward. The duty of candour Bill, which I will come on to, is a useful, positive and helpful development, but unless we have a proper examination of what went so badly wrong, then I am not entirely sure we will learn the full lessons of what happened over the past couple of decades.

The inquiry uncovered shocking revelations about the Government’s handling of the issue, including failures to provide full information to those affected by contaminated blood and the delay in acknowledging the extent of the problem. Sir Brian’s inquiry found that both Ministers and civil servants adopted lines to take, or strategies to avoid providing full and candid responses to the crisis. That lack of openness contributed to the suffering of those impacted, leaving many victims and their families feeling unheard and ignored for decades. Those of us in the House in the noughties who were raising these concerns and issues on behalf of constituents who presented in our surgeries remember being dismissed by “nothing-to-see-here” letters from successive Health Ministers. I would not say we were fobbed off exactly, but we were certainly told that there was nothing we should really be concerned about. With all the serious issues that were raised, there was a real sense that none of it was being taken seriously.

Sir Brian Langstaff recommended that Ministers and senior civil servants should be legally required to provide candour and completeness in their responses to public concerns. That brings us to the duty of candour Bill promised by the Government. I think all of us involved in this campaign were delighted to see it featured in the King’s Speech. We look forward to the Government introducing it. Most of the Bill is predicated on the response to Hillsborough. Key lessons have been taken from the infected blood scandal, and from other scandals such as the Horizon Post Office scandal. All of us who have been involved in these campaigns will look forward to our opportunity to debate and design the Bill.

A statutory duty of candour for all public servants, including civil servants and Ministers, would hold public officials accountable for their actions and require them to be transparent in their dealings with the public. Such a law would compel civil servants and Ministers to act with integrity and fully disclose all relevant information, even when it might be uncomfortable or damaging to the Government’s reputation.

In the course of the Langstaff inquiry, Andy Burnham pointed out that during the tainted blood scandal and even earlier, in various materials, the Government had frequently employed the phrase

“no wrongful practices were employed”.

In our debates on this issue, I often refer to Andy Burnham’s evidence to the inquiry, because it was particularly compelling and very helpful. I probably received more letters from him when he was Health Secretary than I did from any other Health Secretary. He talked about the letters that he used to send to Members of Parliament, and expressed his concern about the inaccurate lines provided by departmental officials. He believed that those lines perpetuated false narratives that failed to address the needs of those whose lives had been so devastatingly affected. He emphasised that the Government’s response to the infected blood issue was driven primarily by a fear of financial exposure, and he believed that explained the comprehensive failure to address the concerns of the victims over five decades.

I have called for a further investigation or inquiry into why this was allowed to happen in a major Department of State, given that it clearly led to many of the difficulties that we are now addressing through various compensation schemes. Much of the debate has touched on the Langstaff inquiry, but a separate look at what went wrong would be useful and cathartic for the Government, and would help them to shape their duty of candour Bill. I am not here to criticise them, although it sometimes sounds as though I am; I think that they have made a good start with all this, and we are all grateful for the £11.8 billion for the compensation schemes.

I became involved with this issue when a couple of my constituents were caught up in it. I remember those early days when we did not know what was going on, and the letters from the Department of Health made the situation all the more confusing. Over the decades, I have come to know members of the community. Some have come down to the House of Commons, told their story, and asked us to question Ministers. I pay tribute to Haemophilia Scotland and the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, which have made excellent representations on their behalf. The fact that we are discussing the issue now and have been able to see a clear way forward is largely due to the case that they put, and the fact that they were able to confront Members of Parliament, the Government and Ministers, and we should give them due credit for what they have done to bring us here today.