Contaminated Blood

Debate between Diana Johnson and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I thank Mr Speaker for giving me this opportunity to make what will be my last speech in this House? I make it on the subject of contaminated blood for a simple reason: knowing what I know, and what I believe to be true, I would not be able to live with myself if I left here without putting it on the official record. I will be honest: this is a speech made with a sense of guilt in that all of us here are collectively culpable of failing to act on evidence that is there before us if only we cared to look and, by extent, failing thousands of our fellow citizens who are the victims of perhaps the greatest untold injustice in the history of this country.

First, let me explain the genesis of my speech. Last year, the chair of the all-party group on contaminated blood, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who has done absolutely outstanding work on behalf of those who have continued to struggle for truth and justice, invited me to a meeting to discuss where next for the campaign. There was a raising of expectations in the last Parliament—I am talking about a lot of goodwill on both sides of the House and a sense that people wanted to do something to help. That continued in the early part of this Parliament, with a sense building that something was going to be done. However, following those expectations, victims now feel that they have been led up to the top of the hill only to be let down once again.

Although I do not doubt the sincerity of the former Prime Minister’s apology at his last PMQs, the Government’s failure to back it with substantial action has left people feeling in the wilderness all over again. To try to find a way forward for them, my hon. Friend asked me to speak to the all-party group about whether my experience on the Hillsborough campaign might provide some insights that would help those still campaigning today, after all these years, for justice for those who have suffered from contaminated blood.

When I focused on that question, I had something of a penny-drop moment—this was when I was preparing to speak to the group. The more I thought about it, the more the parallels between the contaminated blood scandal and Hillsborough became clear. Obviously, both relate to the 1980s and both resulted from appalling negligence by public bodies, but there is also the fact that both have been subject to an orchestrated campaign to prevent the truth being told. It is that failure to give the victims the truth that compounds the injustice and the suffering.

Here is what I think is the crux of the problem. Contaminated blood has always been viewed through a financial prism. That suits the Government. It keeps the victims in a position of subservience, forced to beg for scraps of help from the various funds that have been set up. By the way, let me make it clear that I am talking about not just this particular Government—although I am talking about this Government—but all Governments. To the extent that the public know anything much about this scandal, there is a vague sense that it is an argument about money. In my view, it is in the Government’s interests to keep it there; they want to keep it there. Why is that? Just as with Hillsborough, if the great British public knew the real story here, there would be such a wave of public support for the victims that demands for full and fair compensation simply would not be able to be resisted by the Government. That is the experience of Hillsborough. When the truth was told, such was the huge groundswell of popular support that there had to be action. Perhaps that is why the Government do not want the truth to be told—they know that there would be little place for them to go in answering those calls.

I have brought this debate to the House today to try to break through that impasse. I want to refocus everybody on giving victims what they have never had—the truth. From what I know, this scandal amounts to a criminal cover-up on an industrial scale. I will present direct evidence to support that claim. There are hundreds of victims of this scandal who can point to evidence of crucial pages missing from their medical notes. Of course, the authorities have an excuse in these cases. They can always say, “Human error—they were lost. When we moved offices, the box got misplaced.” As implausible as that excuse is, they get away with it because how can we prove otherwise? But I want to focus on a small number of specific cases that reveal deliberate, provable acts of cover-up.

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

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s outstanding work on the Hillsborough inquiry and what he achieved there. Obviously there is still more to do. On behalf of the all-party group, I am so grateful that my right hon. Friend was willing to share his experiences with us in relation to contaminated blood.

I want to raise a point about Lord Owen’s request for documents, when he was the Health Minister in the 1970s. He was told then by officials that those documents had all been destroyed. The Archer inquiry, which I am sure my right hon. Friend will refer to, found no reason why that should have happened. I know he is going to talk about specific cases of documents being lost or doctored in some way. From what happened to a Government Minister, and given this idea of an industrial scale cover-up, does my right hon. Friend think that what happened with the individuals he is about to describe and with Lord Owen just shows how deep-seated this cover-up is?

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend has put her finger on the point. With Hillsborough, when we finally got to match up documents held at a local level with those held at the national level, the full picture began to emerge. It is my contention that exactly the same would emerge here. The direct examples of a cover-up that I am about to give, relating to individual cases, would then be put together with what we know about documents held—or, indeed, not held, which itself implies wrongdoing—at a national level. In the end, it is the putting together of that picture that gives people the truth and allows them to understand how this happened. I will come directly to that point later.

I will focus on three cases. I highlight them not because they are the only ones I have seen or been sent, but because I have met or spoken directly to the individuals concerned, have a high degree of confidence in the facts and believe that these cases are representative of many more. The first case is of a gentleman who does not want to be named. I will call him Stuart, but I do have his full details.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. There is a stigma related to HIV and hepatitis. People do not want to talk about it openly. Although I have drawn a parallel with Hillsborough—the hon. Gentleman was outstanding in his support for me on that issue—there are many differences, and one major difference is that, with Hillsborough, the event happened on one day, and everybody was watching it and can remember where they were when the pictures came through. This scandal was a silent one, which affected people in all parts of the country and all walks of life—not people from a similar place. These people were spread about and unable to organise in the same way the Hillsborough campaigners were. That is another reason why they have not been able to move things forward, and the reason the hon. Gentleman gave is true, too.

When Stuart was six years old, he was sent by Maidstone hospital to the Lewisham and Oxford haemophilia centres to have tests to see whether he had haemophilia. When he was seven, they wrote back and said that all the tests were normal and that he did not have a bleeding problem. When he was eight, he attended Maidstone hospital with a swollen knee—nothing more. It was not life threatening, and he had no bleeding problem associated with it.

Then, with no warning to Stuart or his parents, Maidstone hospital treated him with 12 transfusions of contaminated blood products over three days. According to his medical records later, that should not have happened. Then, in 1986, the hospital, unbeknownst to Stuart, carried out an HIV and a hepatitis B test on him. He was never tested for hepatitis C, even though his records show that a test was available at the time. He was not tested in 1989 or called back as other tests became available. He has all his medical records, but one thing is missing: the batch numbers for the contaminated blood products.

Stuart was eventually told he had a hepatitis C infection in—listen to this, Madam Deputy Speaker—January 2013. He was also told that it was too late for him to pursue a court case, despite the fact that legal experts said that what had happened to him was negligent and he firmly believes there has been a cover-up.

Let me move on to the case of a woman called Nicola Enstone-Jones. She wrote:

“As a female with haemophilia diagnosed in the ‘70s. From the age of 9 my parents spent years trying to find out what happened to me after receiving Factor VIII, this was in 1980…Dr’s denying anything was wrong with me, referring to me as having psychological problems, as there was nothing wrong with the treatment they gave.”

She says that that was not unusual for haemophiliacs growing up then. She goes on:

“It was when I was 24”—

24!—

“in 1995 that I asked a nurse if I’d ever been tested for Hepatitis C, as my mum had seen on the news about Haemophiliacs being diagnosed and dying from this new strain of Hepatitis, and all the signs and symptoms listed was me.

The nurse laughed at me and said ‘you won’t have that’; then came back with my medical notes and informed me I was positive to Hepatitis C from a test…done in 1991. A test I knew nothing about... like a true haemophiliac and after spending years of searching for answers I had suddenly found out why I had suffered health problems since childhood.”

However, it was only later, when Nicola was able to access her medical notes, that she found an entry for 1990, which she has drawn to my attention, and I have it in my hand. The notes say: “Discussed hepatitis C”. Nicola has told me directly that that never happened—it was never discussed with her in 1990. She found out for the first time in 1995.

This story actually gets quite a lot worse. Let me read out what Nicola goes on to say:

“Little did I know almost 19 years later I would be at a police station reporting what I”

believe

“to be a criminal act and a form of abuse on my own child, once again…Dr’s performing tests”

without consent,

“another well-known”

practice

“which Haemophiliacs are sadly used to.

I had found out in 2013 that my 9 year old haemophilic son had been tested for HIV and hepatitis’s and no doubt a whole host of other viruses and pathogens, just like I had been when I was younger. Given my daughter has a bleeding disorder too, there is no doubt in my mind she will have been tested...I found this out third hand, by chance in a letter which was another professional”

asking

“if my son needed treatment abroad. The letter stated ‘This 9 year old haemophilic has a factor VIII level of 10% and…has been tested for HIV and hepatitis…which he is negative to.’”

She had never been told about this or given consent for her son to be tested. She says:

“Surely this isn’t right, in this day and age”.

In my view, it is a criminal act to test a child without a parent’s knowledge.

Let me come on to the third case, which, in my view, is the most troubling of them all. It relates to a gentleman called Kenneth David Bullock—Ken Bullock. Ken was a very high-ranking civil engineer who worked around the world. In his later career, he spent time advising what was then called the Overseas Development Agency. He was a haemophiliac. Sadly, Ken died in 1998—a very traumatic death, unfortunately. Let me read from the letter that his widow, Hazel Bullock, sent to me a few weeks ago:

“I am so relieved to hear you are still committed to an active”

inquiry into

“the contaminated blood tragedy…Between the 15th November, 1983 and the 3rd December, 1983, my husband stopped being a Haemophiliac patient who had been infected with NonA-NonB type Hepatitis to being a clinical alcoholic…This accusation continued and escalated during the next fifteen years completely unknown to him, he was refused a liver transplant in 1998 and left to die still unaware of these appalling accusations. He did not drink alcohol.”

Mrs Bullock has examined her late husband’s medical notes in detail. Again, I have them here in my possession today. An entry in his notes from February 1983 says, “Acute Hepatitis”. Another from March says:

“NonA NonB Hepatitis which he probably obtained from Cryo-precipitate”—

the recognised treatment at the time. Again in 1983, the notes say:

“In view of his exposure to blood products a diagnosis of NonA NonB was made.”

However, it would seem at that point that all mention of blood products was to be stopped, very suddenly. Mrs Bullock says:

“They were never again to be found anywhere in my husband’s notes. From the 15th December, 1983 all the hospital records refer only to alcoholic damage to the liver. I have in my possession full copies of all the following notes.”

In December 1983, the notes say, “alcohol could be considered”; in 1994,

“likes a few beers at week-ends”;

in 1995, “alcohol related hepatic dysfunction”; in 1995 again, “clinical alcoholism”; and in 1996, “chronic high alcohol consumption.” In 1998, the year that Mr Bullock died, they say, “alcoholic cirrhosis.”

Mrs Bullock concludes her letter:

“My husband died on the 3rd October, 1998. At no time during this 15 years should alcohol have been mentioned. My husband’s rare and occasional glass of wine was minimal. He never drank beer or spirits. Alcohol was never a part of our lives and he had his last glass of wine on 18th June 1995, my 60th birthday. My husband died completely unaware of these accusations that have shocked family, friends and colleagues alike.”

Just as the evidence of amended police statements provided the thread that we eventually pulled to unravel the Hillsborough cover-up, so I believe the evidence that I have just provided must now become the trigger for a wider inquiry into establishing the truth about contaminated blood. There is a very disturbing echo of Hillsborough—is there not?—in what I have just said. People who were the victims of negligence by the state were suddenly the victims of smears perpetrated by those working on behalf of public bodies, particularly smears related to alcohol, suggesting that the disease that afflicted Mr Bullock’s liver was self-inflicted. That reminds me, of course, of the front-page newspaper stories that appeared straight after Hillsborough that alleged that Liverpool fans were drunk. It is a time-honoured tactic—is it not?—to deflect the blame from where it should be over to somewhere else.

It is of course possible that in each of the cases that I have mentioned the hospitals and clinicians concerned were acting on an individual basis to prevent their negligent practices from being known. I have to say, however, that I doubt that that was the case. My suspicion, as I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, is that there are documents held at a national level, either by the Government or by regulatory or professional bodies, that point to a more systematic effort to suppress the truth.

I actually have two documents in my possession—this will save the Minister and the Government time if they want to suggest that there are no such documents—and I want to put them on the official record. The first is a letter sent in January 1975 by Stanford University’s medical centre to the Blood Products Laboratory, which was the UK Government’s wholly owned blood products operation. The letter goes to great lengths warning about the risk of the new factor VIII products that were coming on to the market. The gentleman who wrote it, Mr Allen, said of one particular product that the

“source of blood is 100 percent from Skid-Row derelicts”.

He was writing to warn the British Government about the blood products that were being used.

The second document is from the Oxford Haemophilia Centre and it was sent in January 1982 to all haemophilia centre directors in England. It says of the new products coming on to the market:

“Although initial production batches may have been tested for infectivity by injecting them into chimpanzees it is unlikely that the manufacturers will be able to guarantee this form of quality control for all future batches. It is therefore very important to find out by studies in human beings to what extent the infectivity of the various concentrates has been reduced. The most clear cut way of doing this is by administering those concentrates to patients requiring treatment who have not been previously exposed to large pool concentrates.”

In other words, it is saying: let us find out whether there is “infectivity”—to use its word—in the products by using patients as guinea pigs, without regard for the consequences. That is proof, in my view, of negligence of a very serious kind.

That brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North raised earlier. When we read the warning from the Americans in 1975 about blood products being derived from blood that had been taken off convicts on skid row and the letter some seven years later in which the Oxford Haemophilia Centre stated that it was necessary to push on with trials—to find out whether the products were infectious by giving them to patients—we soon start to see that there was something here that needed to be hidden.

In addition, we must consider the fact that all the papers belonging to a Health Minister were, as I understand it, comprehensively destroyed under something called the 10-year rule. I have been a Minister, and I have never heard of the 10-year rule. Have you, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a new one on me. A Minister’s papers were destroyed without his consent. To me, that sounds alarm bells and suggests that something is seriously amiss.

[Diana Johnson]

Was my right hon. Friend shocked, as I was, to learn that in November 1983, the then Health Secretary told Parliament:

“There is no conclusive evidence that acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) is transmitted by blood products”?—[Official Report, 14 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 328W.]

Only months earlier, however, the Department had been preparing a document that stated that AIDS was almost certainly transmitted in such a way, and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens had also told of strong circumstantial evidence that the disease was blood-borne. It seems as though there were real issues about what people and Parliament were being told. Ministers must never mislead Parliament, yet clearly the information that was being given to Parliament at the time was not correct.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Debate between Diana Johnson and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I will happily look at what is happening on the ground in Ipswich. However, there is an important difference that I point out to the hon. Gentleman. It is possible to keep a children’s centre’s lights on and keep a receptionist and a cleaner, but what is going on inside? Is he satisfied that an appropriate level of service is being provided to support the parents of Ipswich? That is the judgment that he has to make. It is not just a case of whether he can come to the House and say that Ipswich is keeping the lights on—it needs to do more than that. Indeed, his own Government have funded it to do more than that. Suffolk, which is the local authority concerned, has had a huge cut of £40 per child in its area. He has to ask his Front Benchers whether that is acceptable for his constituents.

Let me go around the towns and point out what is happening on the ground. Derby, home to a Tory-Liberal coalition, seems like a good place to start. Surely there, if anywhere, people would implement coalition policy to the letter, would they not? Well, perhaps not, because we find that in Derby six children’s centres are threatened with closure. In a BBC news report on 10 March, Kelly Jennings, daughter of the Tory leader of the council, Harvey Jennings, said:

“I voted for the Conservatives because I thought there was going to be more help for the NHS. Now they are cutting that off and locally they are cutting off the Sure Start centres which single parents like myself rely on.”

We have been very pleased to welcome Kelly into the Labour party because she sees that in these tough times only Labour will be the voice of people and stand up for the services on which people depend. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, so let us look at some Tory authorities. We have heard wonderful praise for many local authorities today; let us look at a few others. Are they working hard, like other authorities, to implement the Prime Minister’s clear pre-election pledges?

In Hammersmith and Fulham, we saw the first use of an interesting tactic that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) mentioned earlier. Many of its 16 children’s centres were under threat of closure. My hon. Friend went to the council meeting to see it discuss the issue. Then we heard the news that six would become hubs and 10 would remain as spokes. Only when we dig a little deeper do we find that nine of those so-called spokes will receive £25,000 a year. What is that enough to pay for—a receptionist, a caretaker, a bottle of bleach? Is there much more that it would pay for? I do not know, but it could not be very much. At the last Education questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) recalled the hospital without patients in “Yes Minister”. This coalition may be remembered for a more modern equivalent —a children’s centre without any children in it. That could be the Secretary of State’s legacy. I do not know about hubs and spokes, but there are certainly plenty of mirrors and smoke when it comes to presenting the facts about Sure Start.

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

I hope that my right hon. Friend might have an opportunity to look at what else is happening in Hull, controlled by the Liberal Democrats, which has seen a 32% cut in the children’s budget across the board and a 50% cut in the money going to children’s centres. Of the 20 children’s centres that we had under the Labour Government, 13 have effectively been mothballed by the Liberal Democrats and will have very few services.

[Andy Burnham]

I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that important point. As she says, the budget for Sure Start in Hull has been cut by 50% from £9 million to £4.5 million. During a previous Opposition day debate on the education maintenance allowance, the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and advocated that people should vote Liberal Democrat, particularly in Hull, pointing to some excellent provision that was available. I wonder whether we will hear that again or whether he will revise that advice to the electorate in advance of next Thursday. A 50% cut—can that be what the Prime Minister had in mind when he said he would strengthen Sure Start? This is the decimation of services on the ground.

Let us talk about some more Tory authorities before we get on to the Liberal Democrats. Tory-controlled Barnet is removing funding from eight of its 21 children’s centres, making £6.4 million of savings. Tory-controlled Bromley is closing 13 of its 16 centres. How can there be a service for the whole borough when just three centres are left? Are Ministers really saying that every parent in Bromley can access those centres and their services? I doubt that very much.

In Hampshire, 28 of the 81 children centres are set for closure. However, we should not worry because help is at hand. The right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) has signed a petition against the changes. Thank God for that!