Infected Blood Inquiry

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Yes. In his letter to me, Sir Brian proposed that there should be expert groups covering a number of areas and expertise, and that those would range from clinical expertise, with that group itself needing to involve experts in haematology, hepatology and virology, and separate expert groups dealing with medical ethics, statistics, and the psycho-social impact of the infected blood scandal, to experts on public administration. It is certainly Sir Brian’s intention that the deliberative sessions of those expert groups should be undertaken in public, and that the core participants in the inquiry should be able both to propose to the chair names for appointment to those expert groups and to ask questions of the experts during their deliberative sessions as well as during formal evidence given by the expert groups to the inquiry in plenary session. Clearly, given the way that these inquiries normally operate, our expectation is that that intervention on behalf of survivors and other core participants would be via their legal representatives, and that again reinforces the reasons why the Government have agreed, exceptionally, to offer legal aid.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for making this oral statement today. The scale of the scandal is such that more than 2,500 people have already died as a result of this disaster. That is far more than all the other disasters from the 1970s added together, starting with the Moorgate tube disaster, running right through to Grenfell just last year—so more than all of those added up together. I want to pay tribute to all those who have fought, over many years, to get to this point. I am talking both about those who were infected and those who were affected. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker for assisting Parliament in getting to this stage today by granting, I think, seven urgent questions, many debates, questions and statements in recent years, which has led to these terms of reference today? The terms of reference are comprehensive, covering many, if not all, of the points that those who were infected and those who are affected have raised with Sir Brian. The Minister made mention of two years as a possible timescale for this inquiry. Does he think that that is realistic considering that Penrose took far longer than that, and is there a mechanism by which Parliament can be given reports on a six-monthly basis of the progress that is being made?

[Mr Lidington]

I join the hon. Lady in the tributes that she has paid to the campaigners. The two-year period is an estimate. It is very difficult to be more precise than that because so much depends on where the evidence leads Sir Brian and the inquiry team. The fact that the expert panels that he has proposed will be able to carry out their work in parallel with the inquiry proper will make it easier to progress at speed than was the case under Penrose where the medical experts sat as a co-determining member of the inquiry alongside Penrose himself.

I should have said in answer to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), but I am happy to say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North that the inquiry will be able to offer interim reports. Although I cannot promise reports to the House at particular intervals, because, again, the inquiry is independent of Government direction, the possibility of interim reports is something that I have emphasised to Sir Brian and it lies within his powers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For too long, unions in the public sector have received taxpayer funding for an activity that is inadequately controlled and poor value for money, which is why we are introducing transparency in respect of facility time. We believe that proper management could save our taxpayers up to £100 million.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The anniversary of the Prime Minister’s announcement of a public inquiry into contaminated blood is fast approaching. Can we expect a statement in the House to say that the terms of reference have finally been agreed and the public inquiry can get on with its work?

[Mr Lidington]

I am acutely aware of that anniversary date, and the justifiable expectations of survivors of that tragedy. I have sent the draft terms of reference proposed by the chair of the inquiry to the devolved Administrations, as I am obliged to do. I hope that I can announce the full details as rapidly as possible.

G7

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. First, we have to set an example ourselves, as we have done in the past and will continue to do through the work we are doing on issues such as plastic straws and cotton buds. It is also the case that we can work with other like-minded countries, not just in the G7 but across the Commonwealth, to ensure that they are working with us to take the action necessary. It is widely recognised—this point was emphasised by the Secretary General of the United Nations at the summit—that this is a key issue and a major environmental challenge across our world, and we all need to work together to address it.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister think that the special relationship is stronger or weaker with President Trump in the White House?

[The Prime Minister]

The special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States continues to be strong. It will endure and continue to be strong. The nature of the relationship is such that when we disagree with the United States and the President we are able to tell him.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to reconsider the decision to deny funding for legal assistance and advice to those affected by the contaminated blood scandal during the consultation on the terms of reference for the infected blood inquiry.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

The infected blood inquiry is a priority for this Government. The infected blood tragedy of the ’70s and ’80s should never have happened, and the victims, who have endured so much pain and hardship, deserve answers. The Government will ensure that the inquiry has the resources it needs to complete its work as quickly as a thorough examination of the facts allows. We are committed to making sure that all those who have suffered so terribly can have the answers they have spent decades waiting for and that lessons can be learned so that a tragedy of this scale can never happen again.

We want to make sure that all those who need to contribute to the inquiry can do so. The Inquiries Act 2005 allows for the chair to make awards for legal representation for the inquiry itself once it is formally established—in other words, after the terms of reference have been set. We know that the inquiry chair intends to make early provision for core participant designation and legal expenses awards after the inquiry is formally set up. So the Government are not denying funds for legal representation at the inquiry. These funds will be available as soon as possible after the inquiry is up and running.

In addition, I can confirm that Ministers have decided that reasonable expenses properly incurred in respect of legal representation for the purpose of responding to the consultation by the infected blood inquiry on the terms of reference prior to the setting-up date will be awarded. Any claims will be handled by the solicitor to the inquiry, and it will be for the solicitor to determine these expenses. I hope that that is good news to the House.

I know that the chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, is keen to ensure that all those affected by this tragedy have a chance to make their voices heard. I know that last night he held a meeting with interested groups and that he is continuing to engage with those who are affected and the bereaved families. Sir Brian wants to ensure that the consultation process is as user-friendly and inclusive as possible, and such that legal advice is not a necessity for being able to respond to the consultation on the terms of reference. He wants to ensure that everyone has the chance to share their views, which will inform the terms of reference.

We believe that this is an exceptional circumstance. Thousands of people have been fighting for years to get answers to why this terrible tragedy happened, and they want to be part of ensuring that such a tragedy can never happen again. I know that the whole House welcomes the fact that the Government have established this judge-led public inquiry to provide the answers that victims and families have had to wait for. I and others here today, I am sure, will continue to play our parts passionately for our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

I thank the Minister for her response. I just wish that the decision had been made earlier. As she outlined, this is a group of people who have battled for many, many years for a public inquiry, and we now want to make sure that the terms of reference are so drafted as to incorporate all the concerns of those affected. As she will know, many of those implicated in the inquiry will have access now to legal advice and expertise in their submissions on what the terms of reference should be.

I must add that the letter of 23 March, drafted by the Minister’s civil servants, which tried to draw a contrast with the families affected by Grenfell—who have been granted exceptional funding for legal assistance—saying that those families were more deserving than this group of people, has caused enormous hurt in the community. Of course we want to make sure that the Grenfell families find out what happened, and 71 lives were lost in that case, but in this case, 2,400 people have already died, and since the announcement of the public inquiry last year, another 70 have died. Many are living with HIV and hepatitis C, and many are co-infected, so they are in poor health. I am really pleased, therefore, that the Minister and the Government have accepted the argument that, while the organisations are well funded to put their cases, individuals should also have access to legal advice and guidance.

I want to say finally that I have met with Mr Justice Langstaff, and I believe that he will do his best to get justice for this group of people. He met with some of the campaigning groups last night, and I know that those meetings went well, but I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention, between now and when the inquiry is set up and Mr Justice Langstaff takes over, to making sure that no more decisions are made that put these individuals, who have been so damaged by the state, in a position where they feel hurt and lack confidence in what I think the Government are trying to do, which is to have a public inquiry that instils the confidence and good will of everybody.

[Chloe Smith]

As I have said from the Dispatch Box before, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work, her campaigning and her compassionate tenacity on this issue. I have worked with her over the years, as have many other Members, and I am pleased that she welcomes the news that I have been able to bring to the House this morning. I reiterate that Ministers share her concerns and are keen to be able to get on with the inquiry as quickly as possible. It will be ably led by Sir Brian Langstaff, so that the constituents whom we all serve can get the answers that they deserve.

In response to her questions, it may be useful for the House if I say that, under the Inquiries Act 2005, it is for Ministers to make decisions, on an exceptional basis, on whether funds might be made available during this preliminary stage. That is what we have done today, because we believe that the circumstances are exceptional.

Salisbury Incident

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should all be clear that the attitude of the Russian state is shown by what it does, not by what it says.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the actions that she has outlined. She said that there was a need for a new targeted power to detain at the UK border those suspected of hostile state action. Many of us will be surprised that we do not already have that power. Is there a plan to bring forward emergency legislation, so that such a power could be put in place quickly?

[The Prime Minister]

The power currently exists in relation to those who are suspected of terrorism, but not of hostile state activity. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be looking urgently at the most appropriate legislative vehicle to bring that power forward.

UK/EU Future Economic Partnership

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. It is of course the decisions that have been taken by Conservatives in government since 2010, which have put our economy in a much stronger position, that enable us to be able to do those very good trade deals. If we just look at what has happened recently—productivity is up, borrowing is down, employment is up—this is a strong economy, and we should have optimism about our future.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Siemens is doing great work in east Yorkshire—in Hull, with a renewables factory, and in Goole, with plans for a train factory—so will the Prime Minister tell me whether she believes there will be the same access to European markets for Siemens once we have left the EU in March 2019?

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the important role that our armed forces have played, not only in tackling Ebola in Sierra Leone, but in tackling the hurricane in the Caribbean last year. As he will know, the Secretary of State and I are both former Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and we are keen to ensure we work closely with our colleagues there.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I was concerned to read that £160,000 of the £5.8 million of UK aid spent with Venezuela was being used for training its repressive security services. I understand this was under review last summer, so will the Minister update us with the latest on that?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My understanding is that the small amount of spending that happens in Venezuela is to support human rights organisations and the British Council’s work on education. I shall certainly take back the hon. Lady’s representations to ensure that what she says is not the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of all parts of the United Kingdom working together to deliver an orderly, smooth Brexit. We want to work in partnership with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to deliver a big increase in the powers devolved to their Parliaments and Governments.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement about the appointment of Sir Brian Langstaff as the judge for the public inquiry into contaminated blood, but will he reassure the House that the inquiry will have a families-first approach, that an outward-facing secretariat will support all those affected, and that meetings will be held around the regions and nations of this country?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady will understand that Sir Brian, as the independent chair, will ultimately determine such matters, but I was struck when I met him by his determination both to listen to the views of the families who have been worst affected by the tragedy and to ensure that those views are fully taken into account.

Capita

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. Of course we will learn those lessons, but it is worth noting that the Scottish Government gave a contract to Capita in 2015. Capita was appointed by the Scottish Public Pensions Agency to deliver its integrated pensions IT software solutions, which is another example of Governments choosing to use the expertise of the private sector.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

There are echoes of Corporal Jones from “Dad’s Army” in the Minister’s response this morning—“Don’t panic! It’s all okay.” Why does he think that Barnet Council—a flagship Tory council, known as “easy council” because of its extreme outsourcing—has put in place contingency plans based on the possible failure of this company?

[Oliver Dowden]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are not in any way complacent. That is why we continue to ensure—I believe Barnet Council will be doing exactly the same—that there are contingency plans in place. Indeed, those contingency plans have worked in respect of the one collapse of a company we have seen: Carillion. Those public services continue to be delivered.

Contaminated Blood Inquiry

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on progress establishing the inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

The contaminated blood scandal of the ’70s and ’80s was an appalling tragedy that should never have happened. The victims and their families have endured so much pain and hardship and deserve answers as to how this could have happened. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for bringing this issue to the House today. I am also grateful for her leadership and for the leadership of right hon. and hon. Members across the House on the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which has done such consistent and constructive work on the issue. As she will know, I myself have been part of that group and have worked for my constituents, as I know all right hon. and hon. Members in the House have done.

As the House will know, following the Prime Minister’s announcement last July of an inquiry into these terrible events, the Department of Health launched a consultation on what the form and scope of that inquiry should be. I would like to thank all those who contributed to that process. We understand how difficult and painful describing these events must have been. The responses to that consultation were carefully considered by Cabinet Office officials and we listened to victims’ concerns. As a result, we confirmed that the inquiry would be statutory and established under the Inquiries Act 2005, and we moved sponsorship for it from the Department of Health to the Cabinet Office.

Before Christmas, we went further and announced that the inquiry would be chaired by a judge. We have asked the Lord Chief Justice to provide us with a nomination, and we hope to announce the name of that judge very soon. Once the appointment has been announced, the Cabinet Office will have early discussions with the chair about setting up the inquiry and will encourage them to quickly hold further consultations with the affected communities over the inquiry’s terms of reference.

I would like to add my personal commitment, and that of all my Government colleagues, to seeing this happen. This is a vital issue. We are all fighting on the same side to ensure justice for the victims of this terrible tragedy and scandal.

[Diana Johnson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting me the urgent question. I also thank the Minister for her response and, of course, welcome her to her new post. I know that one of her constituents was affected by this scandal and that she understands what the issue is about.

Six and a half months have passed since the announcement of the inquiry. The previous Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), set out his intention to appoint a chair before Christmas. That did not happen. We were then promised a statement in the new year, but, after nearly a month, there has been no further progress. It took precious months, and an intervention from the former Bishop of Liverpool—and chair of the Hillsborough inquiry —to persuade the Government to move the inquiry from the implicated Department of Health. That was achieved by working with all those affected in a unifying way and it concerns me that the same approach has not been adopted in recent consultative meetings with the Cabinet Office.

Not only have we seen a change of Minister, but we understand from press reports that the senior civil servant responsible for the inquiry is due to leave the Cabinet Office. I therefore have three questions for the Minister. First, will she publish a clear timetable setting out when she intends to appoint a chair and agree the terms of reference and specifying the date on which those conducting the inquiry will meet? Secondly, will she commit herself to a “families first” inquiry, with evidence taken in regional hubs across the United Kingdom and with a public-facing inquiry secretariat working with all those affected? It is essential for the inquiry chair to adopt that approach and to be able to work alongside a panel of experts. Finally, will the Minister confirm that the terms of reference will be set independently by the chair, following a consultation with all those affected, and that they will cover the aftermath of the scandal rather than just the run-up to it?

This is a treatment disaster of huge proportions, in which the Government are implicated. It has already taken the lives of 2,400 people and has blighted the lives of many more. For those who have died in the last six months, justice delayed is justice denied. The lack of progress is causing huge distress and upset to the families affected. The Minister must take immediate steps to secure for this community the truth and the justice that they have been denied for far too long.

[Chloe Smith]

I have seen a copy of the letter that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) sent you this morning about the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I have therefore come prepared with responses to the points made in that letter. I hope to be able to deal with them now.

Let me begin by reiterating that we intend to make a further statement about the chair very shortly. I take the hon. Lady’s point that there should be no further delay. The Government are committed to getting this right and to getting it done as quickly as possible, for all the reasons that she has already given.

The hon. Lady suggested that this could have been done more quickly. It was important for the consultation launched by the Department of Health to be allowed to reach its conclusion, so that all who wished to contribute had a chance to do so. As soon as that was complete, an early decision was made to transfer the sponsorship to the Cabinet Office, in line with the strong feeling of respondents. I think it important that we listened and acted accordingly.

Following the written ministerial statements made by the Cabinet Office in November, the Prime Minister made a further statement before Christmas confirming that the inquiry would be judge-led, which reflects the gravity and complexity of the issues to be considered. Again, we listened to the respondents who had asked for it to be judge-led and agreed. We now understand the importance—the absolute, imperative importance—of getting the inquiry under way as soon as possible, and as I have said, we will make a further statement as soon as possible as well.

The hon. Lady asked about regional hubs and asked whether the inquiry would put families first. The Government will ensure that the inquiry has the resources that it needs to complete its work. It will, of course, also be independent of the Government, which was another theme that featured in her questions. I am therefore not in a position to answer every single one of her questions. It would be for an independent chair to answer all the questions she has asked: for example, her question about the fine detail of the terms of reference. However, given the sensitivity of the issues under consideration, the chair will no doubt be focused on ensuring that all those affected have every opportunity to participate in the inquiry process.

As the hon. Lady mentioned, the former First Secretary of State held a number of meetings with representatives from the affected communities. The Government will of course be more than happy to continue that engagement if it is necessary and, moreover, I am confident that the chair of the inquiry will take that up and want to hear views and testimony from all those affected across the UK.

The hon. Lady asked explicitly about the terms of reference. I expect that the chair will want to consult the affected community on those terms. Once the chair has done so and has made a recommendation to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, there will of course be a further statement to this House setting out what the scope of the inquiry will be.

I reiterate that I want to ensure that those affected get the answers they deserve as quickly as possible and that they receive what many have been asking for. This is a judge-led inquiry that will be independent and, I hope, effective in getting answers.