Infected Blood Inquiry

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Infected Blood Inquiry.

I am grateful for this opportunity to come before the House to update it on this vital issue and discuss the findings of the infected blood inquiry’s final report. We are now almost six months on from the publication of that report. I am pleased to have the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne) with me on the Government Front Bench today. He will lead on the elements of the inquiry report that are matters for the Department of Health and Social Care. We are as one in our determination to drive forward this vital work and deliver action on the findings of the infected blood inquiry’s report. That is the very least that the infected and affected victims of this appalling injustice deserve.

As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, I have made a number of statements to this House regarding the progress the Government have made on the compensation scheme. Today is an opportunity to go beyond that and cover the wider issues raised in Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. I am grateful to colleagues across the House for their engagement on this matter. I know that we are united as a House in seeking to deliver justice, in so far as it is possible, for this terrible scandal. We will not shy away from the appalling findings of the inquiry’s report and the horrors that have been inflicted on the infected blood community. I reiterate my thanks today to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for that comprehensive report. Crucially, I thank the community themselves. I recognise the anger and the mistrust that many, quite understandably, hold towards public institutions that have let so many people down so badly.

When the infected blood inquiry reported in May, the now Prime Minister and I were clear that an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action. It is action that we are taking. That is why I was so determined to move quickly to establish the infected blood compensation scheme and why I expect to see payments begin by the end of this year. The Prime Minister committed to delivering the Hillsborough law to help address the institutional defensiveness so powerfully exposed by Sir Brian’s report.

Today, I want to update the House on the work we are driving forward across the other key findings of the report to do everything possible to ensure that an injustice such as this is never allowed to happen again. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor provided, for the very first time, specific funding for the compensation fund: £11.8 billion in the Budget. That makes clear the scale of this Government’s commitment to justice, and I am proud that we are driving that work forward. Compensation delayed for generations will be delivered.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend rightly pays tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff. Everyone should be grateful to him for what he has done. In recommendation 14 of his second interim report, he was quite clear that the compensation body should be at arm’s length from Government and chaired by a completely independent judge with sole decision-making powers. Do the Government accept the core of that recommendation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has operational independence. The Government have stewardship over the amount of money allocated. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the £11.8 billion is a huge and substantial commitment. I do not pretend for a moment that any amount of money can actually provide recompense for the scale of the injustice, but at the same time it is an indication of the commitment—from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and across the Government—to deliver justice.

In saying that, I should say that I am grateful for the work and co-operation of hon. Members across the House. In particular, I once again thank my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for his efforts in government. As I indicated in the debate last week, I look forward to continuing to work in that spirit with the new shadow Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), on this hugely important issue. I also thank my ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), and the former Member for Worthing West. Their tireless campaigning and representation of the community’s interests over so many years has been invaluable.

Much progress has been made in responding to Sir Brian’s report, but much more remains to be done. I will set out the Government’s fuller response to the recommendations to the House in line with the timetable Sir Brian set out, but I hope in the course of this debate to assure right hon. and hon. Members, and most importantly those in the community, that we have listened, we have learned and we are taking long overdue action.

The inquiry’s report is persistent in uncovering the truth, unshakeable in its honesty and damning, frankly, in its criticisms. It is absolutely clear that fundamental responsibilities of patient safety in healthcare were repeatedly ignored, and that

“what happened would not have happened if safety of the patient had been paramount throughout.”

The culture of wilful ignorance runs through the report, and continued to proliferate as the scandal developed. It speaks to Governments across decades and a state more focused on discharging its functions, whatever the risk and whatever the cost. The report chronicles suffering of almost unimaginable scale: thousands of people died prematurely and continue to die every week; lives completely shattered; evidence destroyed; victims undermined; families devastated; and children used as objects of research.

It is a truly horrifying injustice.

However, Sir Brian’s report goes much further. He lays bare the institutional defensiveness that existed within the Government, and indeed the civil service, which led to the truth being hidden for so long, compounding the pain and the injustice. Sir Brian highlights

“the consequences of civil servants and ministers adopting lines to take without sufficient reflection, when they were inaccurate, partial when they should have been qualified, had no proper evidential foundation…or made unrealistic claims that treatment had been the best it could be.”

These actions are the very antithesis of public service, and that is why I know there is such collective determination to learn the right lessons and to act on them.

There is so much that can be said about the volumes of evidence that Sir Brian has uncovered, and I know that during this debate many Members will raise vital issues, but let me be absolutely clear: the report details utterly unacceptable failings on a chilling scale, and this Government will do everything in their power to address them. Through acting on these lessons, we must ensure that all those who have suffered, and those who have campaigned, have not done so in vain.

Let me now turn to the 12 recommendations that the inquiry made in its report. First, I will touch briefly on the progress that has already been made. I know that Members on both sides of the House are keen to hear the details of what the Government intend to do in response. The recommendations are wide-ranging, and are being given full consideration. As I have said, I will provide an update to Parliament by the end of the year against each and every one of those recommendations.

I will begin with compensation. I have already updated the House on a number of occasions on the progress that is being made. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate on the regulations that we have made to establish the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and the core route for compensation for infected people, but I am also grateful, crucially, for the support there has been throughout the House to ensure that the delivery of compensation is not delayed in any way by Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) for his maiden speech. It is clearly special for him to represent the area in which he grew up. He has so much personal experience and memories, and he spoke passionately about his family. I am sure they are very proud of him today, and that he will be an excellent representative for Gedling. I remember his Labour predecessor well. We were both elected on the same day, and perhaps I can challenge my hon. Friend a little and say that he has big boots to fill as his predecessor was an excellent Member of Parliament.

It is worth reminding ourselves of how we got to this stage. In spite of everything we have heard about the excellent progress being made in response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, there is still an enormous amount of frustration out there among victims and their families. In the 1970s and 1980s, as many as 6,000 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were treated with factor concentrates contaminated with HIV and hepatitis viruses. Almost all of them were infected with hepatitis C, and around 1,250 people, including 380 children, were also infected with HIV. Some of those unintentionally infected their partners or other family members. More than three quarters of those infected with HIV have since died, as have around one third of those infected with hepatitis C. Of those still alive, many are in poor health due to liver damage, or from living with long-term HIV. Additionally, around 26,800 people were given blood transfusions that were infected with hepatitis C. All that was avoidable.

By the 1970s, blood and blood products were already known to transfer viruses. It was known that the use of pooled blood products significantly increased the risk of infections. Those risks were ignored by leading clinicians, Ministers and civil servants, and they failed to take appropriate action to end the use of those products and ensure the use of safer products. Pharmaceutical companies and leading clinicians did not share appropriate information about risks with patients and patient groups. They failed in their duty of candour. It is no wonder that the victims of those crimes mistrust the state—the state that should be there for them, to protect them and be on their side.

We are here because, despite many dying along the way, and with one victim dying every four days, the surviving victims refused to give up. They refused to be defeated. They won their battle, and over and above that they won the right to be included in the decisions, as Sir Brian Langstaff made clear in his report. All along, the victims have been lied to, refused access to information, their records have mysteriously gone missing, and more recently they have found themselves repeatedly let down by the Government, it has to be said, in the form of the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office controls the decisions of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. I hear what the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office said to me earlier about operational independence, but ultimately the Cabinet Office is making the decisions and victims are not included in the way that Sir Brian recommended. Victims feel that decisions are being made without their involvement. Those suffering with hepatitis C feel particularly excluded and do not feel that their suffering has been fully recognised in the compensation scheme.

In his interim report, Sir Brian Langstaff said that there should be an arm’s length body. I will not read the whole recommendation, but he said:

“I recommend that an Arms Length Body…should be set up to administer the compensation scheme, with guaranteed independence of judgement, chaired by a judge of High Court or Court of Session status as sole decision maker”.

The report goes on to state that the body should

“involve potentially eligible persons and their representatives amongst those in a small advisory panel, and in the review and improvement of the scheme; and…permit the hearing of applicants in person.”

None of that is part of the compensation process, yet it is clearly there in the report, and it was Sir Brian Langstaff’s intention that the victims should be involved much more.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In terms of listening to the victims, there was an extensive consultation exercise during the general election campaign. My predecessor set that up, and it continued under the aegis of civil servants in that period. Afterwards, 74 recommendations were made, having listened to the community about changing the scheme. The Government accepted the implementation of 69 of those 74 recommendations. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that shows listening to the concerns about the scheme’s original formation. In respect of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, I strongly recommend that he, as chair of the APPG, meets Sir Robert Francis and David Foley. He can speak to them about precisely the involvement of the infected blood community, which is hugely important.

[Clive Efford]

I am fully aware of the consultation that took place, but what Sir Brian Langstaff describes is the ongoing involvement of the victims in the process, by their being part of an advisory panel and continuing to advise the compensation board.

I know that David Foley was at the conference at the weekend for the organisation that represents people with hepatitis. That organisation was pleased with the discussions it had with him, but none the less and in spite of that, people who were at that conference have since made clear to me that they feel frustrated and that, ultimately, the Cabinet Office is in control of the decision-making process. My right hon. Friend may take issue with that, but he should take note of the fact that that belief is out there, and we need to deal with it.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to labour the point. All that we are hearing from the representative groups—those who make sure that they represent all those in the infected or affected communities—is that they want consultation with Government. They just want to be listened to and properly consulted as all these regulations are designed going forward. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not understand the Minister’s sensitivity around all this. He has to be aware—I am pretty certain that he is—that there is this sensitivity when it comes to the community.

[Clive Efford]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to make my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General aware of the strength of feeling out there that needs to be addressed. We will not satisfy people about the process unless we address those concerns.

One thing driving that concern is that the current process is not what was described in Sir Brian’s report, and it is not what was expected at the time he published his reports. The victims and their representatives feel excluded. On top of that, they feel enfeebled because of the lack of resources for advice and advocacy. There is further to go, if the victims are to have complete faith in the process. There is frustration that the people they have been battling against have been put in charge of the reparations. Surely my right hon. Friend can see their concerns. The death rate is now one every three days, and the increase in the rate is largely due to the fact that those with hepatitis have been suffering with long-term chronic liver disease. The Red Book for the Budget sets out that compensation will be paid over five years. At that rate, another 600 people will die without getting justice. The Treasury must not become another reason for justice for victims being delayed. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that that will not be the case?

I am aware that Sir Brian Langstaff has written to my right hon. Friend about the rule on siblings of 18 years of age at the time the sibling passed away. Will he explain to the House—or write to me on this—exactly where that ruling came from? It does not seem to appear in any of the recommendations or in Sir Brian’s report.

I have spoken before about the £15,000 offered to former pupils of Treloar school, which they consider derisory. It is another example of what happens when victims are excluded from the process.

I also draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is an excoriating criticism of the Cabinet Office. It exposes what it describes as a lack of clear and understandable information in the explanatory memorandum and a lack of preparedness for delivering the compensation scheme. The Committee doubts that the Cabinet Office will be able to pay compensation by the end of the year. Is he confident that the Committee is wrong and that payments will be made by the end of the year?

Lastly, large amounts of money were made by pharmaceutical companies and others while victims were being exploited and, in some cases, even being experimented on. That did not come about because of mistakes; they were deliberate actions, which in many instances were criminal. The British taxpayer must not pay the full cost alone. Those who made money from this appalling scandal should be required to make a significant contribution. In spite of what my right hon. Friend may consider a negative speech, I welcome the progress that we have made, but there is much further to go to deliver the justice that Sir Brian Langstaff set out in his report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is carefully considering this matter. If the hon. Gentleman would like, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will write to him, but he is considering it.

We expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making payments to people who are infected under the infected blood compensation scheme by the end of this year. Payments to the affected are expected to begin in 2025, following a second set of regulations.

Turning to a question raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire about the independence of IBCA, it is rightly operationally independent. Parliament would clearly expect the Government to have oversight of a scheme of this size and for there to be proper management, given the amount of public money going into the scheme. It is true that there are only two non-departmental public bodies that are independent of the Government: one is IBCA and the other is the National Audit Office. It is absolutely right for IBCA to have that independence.

[Clive Efford]

On that point, the National Audit Office is directly accountable to Parliament through the Public Accounts Commission. Is the intention to create a similar sort of arrangement, as envisaged by Sir Brian Langstaff, in which there is direct accountability to Parliament, rather than to the Department?