Contaminated Blood

Debate between Graeme Morrice and Tom Clarke

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

May I say from the outset how pleased I am that the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has secured a debate on an issue that has had profound and devastating consequences on the lives of at least two of my constituents and indeed thousands of individuals and families across the country?

I hope that through my contribution I will be able to give a voice to my constituents who have been affected by contaminated blood and who, up until now, have had no answers to what is considered to be one of the worst tragedies in modern health care. The experiences of my constituents echo many of the findings in the APPG report, particularly in terms of the inadequacy of the support available and the difficulties encountered when applying for entitlements from the Skipton Fund. I want to take this opportunity to praise the work of the APPG for haemophilia and contaminated blood.

I was deeply saddened to hear of the plight of two of my constituents who received contaminated blood during the 1980s.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

My hon. Friend will be aware that some of us who have sought for many years to get legislation through the House but have not yet achieved it feel that whoever wins the next election should make sure that time is available for this. Does he agree with that objective?

[Graeme Morrice]

Yes, I certainly concur with my right hon. Friend and commend him for his work in this field.

My constituent Mr Billy Cannon of West Calder suffered from a burst ulcer in 1986, which meant he required two blood transfusions. Mr Cannon was fine after the operation and recovered. However, it was not until August 2010, some 24 years later, when he was diagnosed with advanced liver cancer that he discovered he had hepatitis C. Sadly, after a brave battle, Billy Cannon, aged 57, passed away in February 2013. The loss of Billy, understandably, has been devastating for the Cannon family and I wish to take this opportunity to pass on my sincere condolences to Linda, Billy’s wife, who has shown great courage in the face of a very difficult set of circumstances.

It is the circumstances around Mr Cannon’s death that are so hard to accept because there have been no answers, no apology and no acknowledgement that mistakes were made that led to his untimely death. His wife recognises that apportioning blame will not bring back her beloved husband. Nevertheless, the death of Billy has had such profound consequences for many different aspects of her life and leaves so many questions unanswered.

Like Billy Cannon, another constituent, Vera Gaskin of Livingston, also contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, may recall that I raised her circumstances with the Prime Minister in the House a few years back. Mrs Gaskin received a blood transfusion during her treatment for cancer in 1985. Fortunately, Vera recovered from the cancer. However, later in 1996 when she began to feel unwell, it was revealed that she too had hepatitis C. Again, no explanation was given to Mrs Gaskin of how she had been infected with contaminated blood.

What is evident in the case of both of my constituents is the lack of information on the circumstances surrounding the passing of hepatitis C through contaminated blood. It is for this very reason that it is so important that there is a review of the events and decisions that led to the tragedy.

Luckily, Mrs Gaskin was in the early stages of the virus when she was first diagnosed and could therefore receive treatment. Nevertheless, living with hepatitis C has been particularly difficult for her and has impacted on all aspects of her life and that of her husband and family. The stigma alone of having hepatitis C has been mentally draining for Mrs Gaskin and her quality of life has been greatly reduced. The hepatitis C has denied her many opportunities and brought many difficulties.

What makes Vera Gaskin’s story even more upsetting is that she has not only had to come to terms with the devastation of her diagnosis, but has had to deal with an inadequate support system, further adding to her distress. Her view of the Skipton Fund, set up to help those affected by the tragedy, is:

“It is not fit for purpose, does not serve the victim and is causing more harm than good”.

I believe that this speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the support arrangements put in place following the tragedy.

I recognise that some improvements have been made to the support and compensation available to those affected, but changes are still clearly required in two areas: first, in the criteria used to determine entitlement for payment from the Skipton Fund, and, secondly, in the amount of financial support available. Despite having the medical proof that she had cirrhosis—the medical criteria required in order to receive further compensation—Mrs Gaskin was denied her stage 2 payment from the Skipton Fund.

She is not alone in encountering such difficulties. The APPG report revealed that 16% of all claims considered by Skipton have been deferred or rejected, many on the basis of insufficient proof. It was not until after a year-long battle that Mrs Gaskin’s application to receive her second stage payment was approved. What is evident from my constituent’s experience is that the criteria used by the Skipton Fund are too strict and only make it more difficult for victims to receive funds that they are perfectly entitled to. In response, I would urge the Government to take action to improve the system of allocating funds and to review the criteria, making it easier for those affected to provide proof.

The second important issue about the support arrangements is the amount of compensation available. Although no amount of money will be able to take away the pain experienced on a daily basis by those affected, it is clear that the amount of compensation available is simply not enough. Many individuals living with hep C continue to experience hardship and financial difficulties, despite the existence of Government-established funds, which is why I would urge the Government to reconsider the amount available with a view to increasing it so that individuals can maintain a good quality of life.

In conclusion, I am sure all Members would agree that what my constituents and others across the country went through is tragic and cannot be undone. That said, I am hopeful that a positive outcome can be reached in the form of a review of the circumstances and the support arrangements available—for the sake of those who are sadly no longer with us and for the sake of those who continue to suffer. The all-party group report makes some important recommendations, to which I hope the Government will respond carefully and positively. I strongly support the report’s recommendations, particularly the calls for a public apology from the Prime Minister on behalf of successive Governments. I hope that, following this debate and, most importantly, following the publication of the Penrose inquiry, some form of justice will be delivered for each and every individual and family across the country who continue to have to deal with the consequences of this awful tragedy.

Scotland and the Union

Debate between Graeme Morrice and Tom Clarke

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the debate, alongside the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), whom I am delighted to follow. In a way, as a Scot who represents an English constituency, she epitomises what the motion is about: the rich blend of the best of all four corners of our land that has made the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the success story it so evidently is. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. Although I might disagree with her politics, I have no doubt that we, as Scots, share a love of our country and want to see what is right and proper for its people and for future generations. It is also fitting that we are holding this debate on the eve of St Andrew’s day, the national occasion when we Scots come together to celebrate our patron saint and demonstrate our pride in all things Scottish.

As the motion states, Scotland has made a significant contribution to the United Kingdom over the 305 years of the Union, and it continues to do so. Indeed, our shared history goes back even further to the union of the Crowns in 1603, when a Scot, James VI, sat on the English throne as James I. He was the first of six monarchs in the Stuart line who ruled both England and Scotland, as well as Ireland, until the Glorious Revolution, and then again to 1714. In fact, it was Queen Anne, the last of the Stuart line, who became the first monarch of the political union of Britain.

With the Acts of Union in 1707, Scotland quickly took advantage of the abolition of trade tariffs with England and trade blossomed. The 18th century also saw the Scottish enlightenment, a period characterised by momentous intellectual and scientific accomplishments, so much so that Voltaire said:

“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.”

With the advent of the Union, Scots took up positions of power in politics, the civil service, the Army and Navy, trade, economics, colonial enterprises and other areas across the emerging British empire. The historian Neil Davidson has observed:

“Far from being ‘peripheral’ to the British economy, Scotland...lay at its core.”

Indeed, throughout the industrial revolution Scotland more than punched above its weight and became known across the world for its excellence in engineering, as typified by Clyde-built ships.

Through advancements in medicine and its inventive spirit, distinct banking system and contribution to art, literature and culture, Scotland has always added greatly beyond its shores. Even in times of adversity, the people of Scotland have not been wanting. During the first world war, despite Scotland having a population of only 4.8 million, over half a million Scots went to the front. My purpose in touching, albeit briefly, on 300 years of Scottish history is to point out that many of our achievements and benefits were because of our place within the UK, not in spite of it.

Scotland is linked intrinsically to the rest of the United Kingdom socially, politically and economically. The single market within the UK affords significant economic, trade and employment opportunities to people on both sides of the border. Our membership of the European Union, through the United Kingdom, provides a vast marketplace for Scottish exporters. Together we have a place at the top table of the European Council of Ministers and we are one of the G8 forum of the world’s largest economies and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, all of which allows us to wield unprecedented influence on the European and global stages. As a member of NATO, we have collectively benefited since the war from international security and defence co-operation on a grand scale.

When it comes to the economy, Scotland has a very important relationship with the rest of the UK. Scotland benefits from access to a market comprising tens of millions of people within a single jurisdiction. Scots are employed by firms based in the rest of the UK, and people in the rest of the UK benefit from employment opportunities with Scottish-based companies. Indeed, in 2010 Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK were worth double its exports to the rest of the world— £44 billion and £22 billion respectively—and manufacturing exports were estimated at £13 billion.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about manufacturing industry. Does he agree that the sizeable increase in manufacturing, which is taking place as we speak, has arisen mainly as a result of the Scottish contribution?

[Graeme Morrice]

I certainly concur with my right hon. Friend on that point.

In addition to the shared opportunities, the pooling of resources across the UK allows risk as well as reward to be spread, as seen most notably in the bail-out of the Scottish-based banks during the financial crisis, when the UK, led by a Scot, injected £37 billion of capital into the banks—an amount in excess of the total budget of the Scottish Government.

The legal framework for business is more or less uniform across the entirety of the UK. That means that there is a similar taxation, regulatory and employment law regime throughout the UK. On the benefit of a single market both to Scotland and to the rest of the UK, the director general of the CBI has stated that the

“raft of common laws and regulations...make operating across the different constituent parts of the union more efficient.”

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has noted that the Scottish economy is

“more integrated with the rest of the UK than Europe or the rest of the world.”

With regard to jobs, people on both sides of the border benefit from employment opportunities engendered by Scotland being part of the Union. The UK Government are a major employer in Scotland, with more than 30,000 civil servants bringing almost £700 million annually to Scotland in salaries alone. Thousands of jobs also rely on the defence sector in Scotland, with 40,000 people employed in more than 800 companies. Companies from the rest of the UK contribute about one fifth of private sector economic activity in Scotland.

On energy, North sea oil is an important contributor to the UK economy, accounting for thousands of jobs in the north-east of Scotland, and a valuable source of revenue for the UK Treasury. However, the supply is declining and unstable. Recent reports show that North sea oil production fell by 30% in 2011 compared with the previous year. For the past 18 years, the level of public spending in Scotland has dwarfed the total revenue from North sea oil; in 2009-10, the difference was £18 billion. In fact, welfare spending in Scotland in 2010 was three times higher than North sea oil revenue. Of course, oil and gas remain an important part of the Scottish and UK economies and will do so in the years to come, but to bet Scotland’s economic future on this sector, as the Scottish National party does, is naive at best and foolhardy at worst. Moreover, Scotland being outwith the UK would create uncertainty for the future of Scotland’s renewables industry, and potentially lead to higher fuel bills and a £2 billion burden on Scottish businesses, due to Scotland receiving a disproportionate share of the available subsidy compared with the rest of the UK. These figures highlight the many benefits of Scotland being part of the UK economy in that we are able to work together in partnership to share the risks and rewards involved in harnessing our energy resources.

Scotland being part of the UK also allows us to pool our resources and distribute them on the basis of social need across the welfare state. If it were outwith the UK, that would place a major question mark over its ability to continue to fund benefits at current levels and to meet state and public sector pension commitments. It is simply an illusion for the SNP to promise Scandinavian levels of welfare spending while supporting Irish levels of taxation.

There are many other positives on which I could elaborate, such as the flexibility across borders which has over the years benefited people on both sides and led to high levels of migration in both directions; indeed, I personally have been a beneficiary of that. Our common currency is one of the oldest monetary unions in the world. A practical and more recent example is the benefit derived by Scottish athletes from UK sports funding, facilities and coaching in the run-up to the Olympics and Paralympics. It is interesting to note that all but three of the Scots who won medals at the Olympics had team-mates from the rest of the UK.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Graeme Morrice and Tom Clarke

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

There can be little doubt that House of Lords reform is pretty low down people’s list of priorities, political or otherwise, but it is important to recognise that the reforms in the Bill, albeit that there is much in it that could be improved—that is an understatement—go right to the heart of how our democracy functions and how we conduct politics in this country.

With the public’s opinion of politicians still at rock bottom, this debate on reforming the second Chamber offers us a chance to present our political process in a new, more modern and transparent way, which will, hopefully, prove attractive to many people. As has been widely pointed out in the debate so far, all three of the main political parties broadly agree on the need for reform—an opportunity that, on balance, it is right for us to seize and make the most of. If we accept that it is important to make this change, we also need to take whatever time is required to make sure that we get it right.

I will focus the rest of my remarks on just three of the many important issues covered by the Bill. First is the question of whether the final reform package agreed by Parliament should be put to the public. Labour’s manifesto was clear on that: we stated that we would put reform proposals

“to the people in a referendum”.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

In Scotland, we had the convention, then an Act of Parliament was passed by this House and another place and then we had the referendum. Does my hon. Friend agree that that was the right way to deal with it?