Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bichard Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

We are talking about contaminated blood imported from the US as early as the 1970s, often having been taken from prisoners with HIV and hepatitis C. It was not checked, yet it was given to innocent sufferers—people already suffering with conditions, as I have said. This was some 50 years ago, yet we are still talking about compensation for the widows and children of these victims. I am sure that we will return to these issues on Report and I really implore the Government, as well as the House, to support the tenor of these amendments.

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, I too speak in support of Amendment 134. I have to apologise, for I am afraid I was unable to attend Second Reading. I speak on this amendment as someone who has spent a good deal of time in the last couple of years chairing one of the expert advisory groups for the infected blood inquiry, looking at public health and administration. As a result, like some other Members of this House, I spent a day at the inquiry giving evidence. That day made a huge impression on me, as I know it will have done on others. It made a huge impression not least because there was an audience of dozens of victims, who had suffered grievously for years and decades. They have shown immense courage, determination and resilience in the face of what the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, has rightly said were serious failings over decades that

“led to catastrophic loss of life and compounded suffering”.

As chairman of an expert advisory group, it was not for me to draw those wide conclusions but I was able to see from the evidence—and draw my own conclusions—that during that period there had been multiple breaches of the Nolan principles and the conventions that preceded them, and multiple breaches, I am sad to say, of the Civil Service Code. In other words, the state let these people down time and again, and the state should now provide restitution without any further delay.

There is one other reason why I am supporting this amendment: because I feel that not to do so would make me complicit in what now seems to be the way in which the state, in all its forms, responds to failings such as this. We delay accepting responsibility for as long as we can. We defend the indefensible. We place the reputation and interests of institutions and the system above the interests of the people who have been harmed. We set up inquiries, which inevitably delay action. I am not in any way criticising the way in which Sir Brian has led the infected blood inquiry; it has been exemplary, and he has done a fantastic job. We then design unnecessarily complex systems for claiming compensation. We do not do this once; we do all that time and again. It happened with Windrush, Grenfell, the Post Office and, probably most heinously of all, the infected blood inquiry.

We have reached a stage where these responses themselves are a breach of the Nolan principles of public life. Let me remind the Committee that these principles include integrity, accountability, openness and leadership. This amendment seeks to change the responses and rebuild the public’s trust in the way in which we govern. It needs to be done quickly, because the inquiry report will come out in May, and it will receive phenomenal attention. It will either further undermine the public’s faith in government or, if we take this action now, perhaps people will believe that we are changing things through action and not through words.

[Lord Owen (Ind SD)]

My Lords, 1975 was a long time ago. I am getting on in age now, and I wondered if I would ever see the day when the decision I announced to the House of Commons with money attached—that we would go for self-sufficiency in blood products—would be honoured, at least in a way so that some of the relatives of the many people whose lives have been lost would feel some sense of satisfaction. I could make a very long speech on all those who have fought this fight with honour, dignity and integrity. They belong to all political parties; it very soon became a cross-party campaign.

I also want to make a few things clear. We knew about this earlier than 1975. A very remarkable book, The Gift Relationship by Professor Titmuss, identified the problem of the blood coming into our country from places in which there were absolutely no safeguards and very few questions you could ask about somebody’s past health. At that time, we had no way of finding out whether blood was infected with hepatitis, for example. We had to ask a simple question as a method of trying to find out whether a blood donor was suitable: we would ask if they had ever been yellow—ie, had their liver ever been affected so that they were jaundiced and, as likely as not, had been infected with hepatitis. It was as crude as that.

I want to make it clear that, through the years in which blood products which doctors knew might be infected were being used, they had an agonising choice. They had to explain the risks to the patients. Sometimes there were children who were not able to understand it, so the issue was put to the parents, who had to juggle these very difficult and complex medical facts. The paediatricians and haematologists had to do their best to explain the risks to them, without really knowing.

When I first began to look at this question, I wondered whether we could get away with having a complete ban on blood products. It soon became clear that, if we did that, we would not be able to give blood products that might well not be contaminated to a very substantial number of patients. Let us remember what the situation is. Eventually, we got a product that parents could inject at home. That meant that, if a child had fallen and was bound to bleed into their knee, arm or elsewhere, they could give the injection straightaway and the child would likely not suffer any serious damage—but that was actually one of the worst products to give. These choices were being made against this background of a lack of knowledge—but nothing explains the refusal of successive Governments to pay compensation to those affected. Nothing explains the delay, which meant that, when AIDS came, we still had no blood of our own—we were not self-sufficient with blood very likely not to be contaminated, although even then we could not be absolutely sure that it would not be contaminated.

What I would have said would have been much stronger, more vehement and angrier if not for the circulation of a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to us about this debate. I have known him in many different guises, and I know him to be a man of honour. Frankly, when I read this letter, I do not need any more assurances that there will not be any unnecessary delays. I believe his words are carefully chosen, and I think he understands, like many people from his own party and people who have been responsible for healthcare, that there can be no more ducking and weaving, and no more appeals from the Chancellor to delay it for another year or anything like that. This time, we have to honour it—and we have to do it this year.

The report will be available on 20 May, and everybody will be able to read it. Judging by the day’s evidence I gave, I think that it will be a searching and honourable report. Given the device in the House of Commons of attaching it to the Bill—of course this was a device—and now given the Government responding to this device by trying not to dismiss it but to make it more precise and effective, that battle seems to be over. We can be sure that this year—in a matter of months—payments will be made. I hope that can be made clear from the Front Bench. Nobody comes out of this with a lot of distinction, but I only say: let us read the report. I suspect a lot of people will feel very ashamed.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Bichard Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, many Peers here and many Members in the other place have referred to this as a technical Bill. In its current state, it is anything but a technical Bill, because it has serious implications for our constitution and for our system of democracy. We should recognise this.

Since the referendum, we have heard a great deal of the need to respect the democratic mandate which the result provided. The people voted, albeit by a narrow majority, to leave the EU, and it must therefore be right that their decision is implemented. This is a moment for us to reflect on and respect the foundations on which our democratic system has been built, not to ignore them. For example, our system has within it a series of checks and balances which ensure that political leaders, once elected, cannot do as they wish without challenge, or without the need to transparently justify their actions and to be accountable in the long term. These checks and balances are never more important than when a policy is controversial or is the subject of the kind of passionate feelings that many politicians demonstrate for Brexit.

Theses checks mean that departmental accounting officers have the right to seek directions; that this House has the right to scrutinise and challenge; that the National Audit Office, which I chair, has the right not just to audit public bodies but to investigate and report on value for money and propriety; and, of course, that the judiciary has the responsibility to judge whether or not the law is being respected. These checks are not, as some seem to believe, irritating evidence of a determination to undermine democracy, but central tenets of our democratic model. We should treat them as such, cherishing and embracing them, because true democracy recognises that the best decisions derive from an exchange of opinion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said yesterday, some decisions are too important to be left to those who have no doubt.

As many Peers have said, our particular democracy has also placed limitations on the power of the Executive to make substantive changes to law by way of secondary legislation. However, the Bill before us specifically gives Ministers the right, via the correcting powers in Clauses 7, 8 and 9, to amend primary legislation by statutory instrument. For example, Clause 7 sets out the powers for Ministers using secondary legislation to amend or undo any EU laws they claim are not operating effectively or are suffering from any other deficiency arising from the withdrawal. The vagueness of these definitions gives Ministers unprecedented discretion, which strikes at the heart of our democracy.

Many people who voted for Brexit did so because they felt ignored and that they had lost control of their destinies. They did not vote for Brexit in order to give Ministers unbridled powers to take away their fundamental rights. The Government belatedly seem prepared to make concessions on this issue, but I am by no means yet convinced that these go far enough. The way in which these concessions have been offered—with apparent reluctance and so late in the day—does little to reassure me that the importance of this issue for the sovereignty of Parliament has been understood. This view was reinforced earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

Our particular democracy is also defined by the way in which we provide access to fundamental human rights—the right to education; the right of older people to lead lives of dignity and independence; the right to protect personal data; and the right to conscientiously object. But by excluding the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from retained EU law, the Government have called into question our commitment to those rights. They have created confusion at the very time when clarity is needed and they have diluted the domestic protection available to those who feel that they have been denied access. Our determination to create a society that recognises and values these fundamental rights, and that genuinely strives to turn the aspirations into reality, is what has given our democracy its meaning and purpose. We should never dilute our commitment to those rights or even give the impression that we are doing so.

Our future is not just about whether we remain part of the EU, as some seem to believe. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said yesterday in what I thought was a wonderful speech, we need to ask ourselves what sort of Britain we want to inhabit. Who do we think we are? What do we live for and what are we prepared to die for? For me, and I suspect for many others in this House, the answer lies in the democratic system we have built down the years and in the fundamental human rights that many of us have sought to enhance and protect during our lives. The withdrawal process must never be achieved at the expense of those core values. There is not now, and I hope that there never will be, a mandate for that. We in this House need to have the courage to amend and improve this flawed Bill, not to frustrate democracy, but to protect it.

House of Lords: Working Practices

Lord Bichard Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bichard]

My Lords, during the past week I have been receiving up to 300 e-mails a day as a result of questions that I asked during a Select Committee being represented as my views on pensioners and work. They are not my views but I have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that not everyone holds this House in as high regard as she has suggested. I have been told that we are out of touch, elitist, out of date, self-serving and irrelevant—and those are just some of the comments that I can share with your Lordships today. Many others clearly believe that having seen off one attack, we are going to see off every attack and any attempt to change the way in which we do things. Those are the reasons why I believe that this is absolutely the time to show that we are determined to make this place more effective in how it carries out its responsibilities and more relevant to the issues that people are grappling with in their everyday lives.

In a fast-moving world—I am sorry about the cliché—we need stable institutions such as this, but even stable institutions have to embrace change. There has of course been some change but not, I would suggest, sufficient to address adequately, as others have said, the recommendations of the Leader’s Group on working practices or, indeed, the suggestions that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, or by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in previous debates. We do not yet have a legislative standards committee, so the need for new legislation remains insufficiently scrutinised. We do not yet have sufficient post-legislative scrutiny to take a hard look at what has happened as a result of previous legislation, in spite of the fact that we know that much of that legislation has not even been implemented. As a result of just those two issues, we have a crisis. We have unnecessary, poorly drafted legislation that is often not implemented and rarely properly evaluated. This House could play a really important part in resolving that crisis.

As others have said, neither do we have a fair and transparent process for deciding what debates take place in the House, or even which Select Committees we decide to establish. We have a House which is too large and we have not found a way of dealing with that issue. I could go on. Your Lordships will have your own suggestions and other priorities but I would like to make a suggestion. We should reconvene the Leader’s Group and commission a full report on the various proposals on the table, now that the reform Bill has been lost. I also suggest that that group reports back to this House so that we can have a proper debate on all these proposals, which is something that we never managed to do following the Goodlad report.

House of Lords: Working Practices

Lord Bichard Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bichard]

My Lords, as the evening has unfolded I have become increasingly pleased to be able to say that I, too, was a member of the working group so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. I would like to think, in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that I was the hot young radical but there may be others who will lay claim to that. I can see them looking at me now.

Early in the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said that this report and this debate were an opportunity for us to take control of our future. This evening the House has seized that opportunity. We know that there are many observers outside the House who are looking at us to see whether we are so transfixed by the debate on the future of the House, its form and its membership that we have lost the appetite to reform our own procedures, and maybe even lost the appetite to stimulate and influence debates of national importance. This evening’s debate has provided a resounding answer to those sceptics. Like many others, I feel much more optimistic than I did this time last week.

The report has tried to answer two very important questions: first, can we be more effective at scrutinising and revising legislation; and, secondly, can we be more successful in stimulating those national debates? It reaches the conclusion that we can be more effective in both respects but only—I stress only—if we make better use of the talent, experience and expertise that exists in this Chamber. I found it interesting that during the course of the working group’s existence several recent entrants to the House approached me—perhaps because I was the newest member on the working group—to say how quickly they had become committed to the work of the House, but also how frustrated they sometimes felt at not being able to contribute in a really meaningful way, particularly those who continue to have important responsibilities outside the House.

We now have a number of new Members who can make a contribution and the capacity that they bring with them can help us to do three important things: first, to set up the two additional Select Committees; secondly, to set up a legislative standards committee; and, thirdly, to set up a post-legislative scrutiny committee. These will exploit the talent better and they are urgently needed. Properly managed and effectively deployed, Select Committees of this House can and already do make a major contribution to the national debate. Yet, as has been said by a number of Members today, very few are in the field of domestic policy, notwithstanding the fact that so many Members of the House and the House itself have so much to offer. We need these two new Select Committees. They do not need to clash with what is going on in the House of Commons, because, as has already been said, the Select Committees in the other place are there to shadow individual departments. This House has long acknowledged that the problems and issues in the real world do not organise themselves satisfactorily around Whitehall bureaucracies. We have long been theme-based and the new Select Committees, too, should be theme-based.

I was initially sceptical about the need for a legislative standards committee. I thought that perhaps there were some other ways in which we could achieve that within our existing arrangements. With some regret, however, I have to say that every hour that I have spent on these Benches has convinced me that we need something to raise the standards of draft legislation. In the recent past, some Bills, frankly, have not been fit for purpose, with little pre-legislative scrutiny and some pretty embarrassingly poor drafting. That does not allow the House to use its ability and resources effectively and that needs to be addressed. A legislative standards committee could do that.

Finally, it is surely time for our parliamentary system to give more systematic attention to post-legislative scrutiny. After all, we spend days in this place considering legislation. Should we not spend some time considering whether it is effective or whether, as another noble Lord said earlier, it is having some unwelcome side effects? Select Committees in the other place have not been able to give that a priority. We could break new ground by setting up a post-legislative scrutiny committee. With great respect, I must say that this is an area where I do not agree with the Leader. This should not be left to ad hoc committees to achieve. We need a committee that can give it focus, build expertise, be effective and develop a coherent strategy for post-legislative scrutiny in this House.

I hope that the overwhelmingly positive response tonight can now be reflected in action—considered action certainly, but urgent action too. I rather hope that we can find some way, maybe by reporting back to this House on occasions, of following how the 55 recommendations have fared rather than only looking at them individually from this point on.