Contaminated Blood

Debate between George Howarth and Mark Durkan

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Howarth]

In a word, yes.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the risks must have been known. Is he aware that the move to set up a compensation scheme in the Irish Republic was made before full state liability was recognised? That liability was recognised only when a second inquiry showed that the state had known there was a risk, but had continued to use contaminated blood products on the basis that, because the United Kingdom and others were using them, it could carry the risk.

[Mr Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, which I fully accept.

My second example comes from a constituent who wishes to remain anonymous. Her husband, who was a haemophiliac, died at the age of 59 after contracting hepatitis A, B and C through contaminated blood administered in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As a result of receiving that contaminated blood, he had developed cirrhosis of the liver, oesophageal varices, ascites, encephalopathy and liver cancer. Understandably, my constituent says, his quality of life deteriorated year by year and month by month until his eventual and sad death. His haemophilia had prevented him from accessing insurance products such as mortgage protection, and the early retirement necessitated by his ill health had decimated his pension, which had left both him and his wife struggling financially.

My constituent had close family members who also died as a result of receiving contaminated blood. The family has been hit hard by a terrible scandal. Twenty years after the death of her husband, my constituent is still campaigning for justice. The family has been given no explanation of why the scandal was allowed to happen, and why the medical records went missing at local hospitals and in the NHS.

My constituent is now 76 years old, and is herself in ill health. She is looking for answers to a number of questions that are still arising, and she hopes to receive those answers in her lifetime and as soon as possible. The family sent me the following statement, which they asked me to read out:

“My family holds that what has long been needed is for this tragedy, which has already directly claimed the lives of 2,000 haemophiliacs”

to be addressed and put into perspective, in terms of its “scale” and in terms of “financial support”. The statement continues:

“We believe that this disaster…is finally seen as one event…the ‘UK Contaminated Blood Scandal’….the scandal is already Britain and Ireland’s 15th biggest peacetime disaster in terms of death toll, since records began, yet very few people know about it…the UK Contaminated Blood Scandal claimed the third biggest collective peacetime death toll in the UK in the 20th Century. My family believes that until this tragedy is finally seen in the proper terms of its fatalities, and is recorded as such…very few people outside of those whose lives have been obliterated will ever be able to grasp the enormity of a scandal”.

The family make two specific requests. First, they call for the current support groups to be disbanded and a new, comprehensive method of support to be introduced to replace the support schemes that are currently available, which they consider to be confusing and unfit for purpose. Secondly, they call for substantial, regular financial support that will meet the care needs of those affected.

I began my speech by saying that this was a debt of honour. I end it by saying that it is a debt of honour that should now be redeemed in full.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between George Howarth and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about trying to remove powers from the Prime Minister, but I am not sure that all the amendments that he supports would do that. I think that, in a fairly effective way, the powers would remain pretty heavily with the Executive.

I am not fully persuaded of the case for the amendment. I fully accept the argument that it would bring some clarity and put some control in the hands of the House. However, there could well be good, logical reasons for having an election that occurred to people at the time, possibly well in advance of a due election date. There could be political difficulties in one of the devolved regions that are leading to elections there, or particular market issues, or all sorts of crises in Europe—although I do not want to excite the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) with that prospect. A variety of reasons could create a coincidence of interest across a number of parties from a number of places to say, “We’ll have an early election”, and a date could be set without necessarily having to do it in crisis mode for six weeks hence.

The beauty of a fixed-term Parliament is meant to be that, because we all know the dates, we do not create uncertainty and have political rushes and get all sorts of brinkmanship games being played. However, if this House is to have the power to dissolve early, it can have that power but not necessarily the power to do it immediately. It can have the power to give due notice that the date is being brought forward but without waiting until just six weeks beforehand. If there is merit in a fixed-term Parliament, there is also merit in leaving this House the opportunity to bring forward a date other than just by a vote six weeks beforehand, because that would create surprise and difficulties and a sense of crisis. I fully accept that the terms of the clause are not fully adequate: the hon. Member for Rhondda is absolutely right about that. We do not have a complete or adequate provision on fixed-term arrangements.

Amendment 4 would remove the requirement for a two-thirds majority. I accept the argument made by many hon. Members that that is a very high threshold. I do not agree that it should be two thirds of all Members regardless of whether they are voting. If we are going to set any majority, or any weighted majority, it should comprise those who are present and voting, so I do not accept the Bill as it stands. However, I cannot just simply go along with the argument that says that there should not be any sort of weighted majority, because then we are not sure what proof we are providing against anybody abusing the numbers in this House to dissolve Parliament early. Other hon. Members have referred to the powers of the Prime Minister and the powers that are exercised through party machinery—the Whips, and so on. Leaving the calling of an early election to a simple majority that can be activated to call an election within six weeks means that huge power remains in the hands of the Prime Minister.

[Mr George Howarth]

Does my hon. Friend accept that being a Member of this place carries with it not only a lot of privileges but a lot of responsibilities, and that if we can achieve a simple majority, that would mean that more than half the Members of the House of Commons—people who have been sent here to exercise their judgment—had reached the conclusion that the time was right for a general election? I cannot for the life of me see why he finds that a difficult concept.

[Mark Durkan]

I believe in the idea of a fixed-term Parliament. I am therefore not comfortable with the idea that, yes, we have fixed-term Parliaments, but that at any time a simple majority can call an election for six weeks hence. That is what I am being asked to vote for as an alternative to what is provided for in the Bill. The Bill is not perfect, and it is badly motivated—I am as cynical as anybody else about that—but I have to be judicious and logical about what I would provide in its stead.

There is an old joke about somebody going into the two-hour dry cleaners and being told, “Come back on Tuesday.” They say, “What do you mean, come back on Tuesday? It says ‘Two-hour dry cleaners’ outside.” Then they are told, “That’s just the name of the shop.” That is exactly what we have with this Bill. People say that they want a fixed-term Parliament, but they also want a Bill that means that it will not, in effect, be fixed, because a simple vote at any time can dissolve it—and who is going to be moving those votes and pulling the strings of the Whips behind the scenes? We must remember that at any time, it will be possible for people to force an election by using a simple majority to force through a vote of no confidence in the Government. If there is not a vote of confidence in an alternative Government within 14 days, there will be an election. If people want the means to force an election, that route exists.

However, it is fair and reasonable also to give the House the power to change the date of an election for reasons that are not particularly partisan, that are mature, responsible and well thought through and that can be justified in light of existing circumstances and forthcoming events. The House should be able to say, “We have a fixed-term Parliament, but we are giving all sides ample notice that we will be moving the date.” That would not be a matter of artifice or brinkmanship. If the House is being offered such a responsible, mature power that it could use with responsibility aforethought, I find it bizarre that Members are trying to twist and turn to find reasons not to take it.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between George Howarth and Mark Durkan

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I do not want to dwell on this, because I spoke about it in the context of an earlier amendment, but we should bear in mind that the boundaries will be revised in every single Parliament and Assembly as a result of the Bill. Given the way in which the seats will be distributed in the various parts of the United Kingdom, the chances are that the number of seats in Northern Ireland will fall following one boundary review, rise following the next, and then fall again.

The unsettling nature of the reviews will affect Assembly and parliamentary constituencies. A computer will say, “This is what we have to do,” and it is possible that constituencies will receive the word that the computer says that there must be a reduction from 15 to 14 following the next boundary review. That will be hugely destabilising, and people will feel frustrated when they are told, “Sorry, this pays no regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly.” Another of my amendments, in a subsequent group, would enable the Speaker of the Assembly to be notified formally of all the workings of the boundary commissions. That would make at least some acknowledgement of the impact on the Assembly, which is completely absent from the Bill.

I believe that if the Government are refusing to allow local inquiries elsewhere—and they should not do that—they should at least allow, as a fall-back, a general inquiry in Northern Ireland that will take account of its particular circumstances. I will support any and all amendments that defend local inquiries.

I ask Members to bear my amendment in mind; I ask the Government to continue to acknowledge that there is a deficit in the consideration that they have given to Northern Ireland in the Bill, and to be ready to make up for that deficit.

[Mr George Howarth]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who always speaks with a deep understanding of Northern Ireland, with a great passion for Northern Ireland, and, of course, with eloquence.

I was elected in a by-election in 1986 to represent a constituency that was then known as Knowsley, North. I represented Knowsley, North in the House until 1997. Following earlier boundary changes—a public inquiry had been held before the boundaries were finally fixed—I ended up representing a constituency known as Knowsley, North and Sefton, East. I represented Knowsley, North and Sefton, East for 13 years. In the meantime, the boundary commissioner came along again, and I now represent a constituency known as Knowsley. I therefore speak as one who has experienced dramatic boundary changes in my constituency on two occasions.

I think it instructive to examine what happened on both those occasions. On the first occasion, when the boundary commission proposed that the Knowsley, North constituency should be coupled with Sefton, East, a public inquiry was held. Different views were expressed on either side of the boundary about what was and what was not appropriate. People had their say. I attended the inquiry on more than one occasion, and heard the debates about what links existed between the two constituencies.

Two facts emerged that tipped the balance. The first was that a large number of people living in the Sefton, East part of what subsequently became the Knowsley, North and Sefton, East constituency worked in Knowsley, which was an industrial area. The second was that many people travelled between the two areas for leisure purposes.

The leisure centre in Kirkby, which was in the old Knowsley, North constituency, was heavily used by people from Maghull, Aintree and Melling, so a link was established, but it would never have been established—nobody would have even checked the statistics on this—unless there had been a public inquiry. In the end, the original Boundary Commission proposals stood and the new constituency was formed; it became a parliamentary seat at the 1997 general election.