Infected Blood Inquiry

Debate between Ian Lavery and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

In the past three years alone, I have spoken in this House at least 10 times about the delays that the victims of contaminated blood have faced in obtaining the justice and compensation they deserve. Progress has been painfully slow and, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, there is much anger, frustration and mistrust for us to deal with, as it has not gone away. It has not been diluted by the general election, and those seeking compensation are rightly angry and mistrustful.

In May 2024, the inquiry found that more than 3,000 people had sadly died as a result of this scandal. Roughly one victim dies every two days, many without receiving compensation. I would not like to calculate how many people have died since I first spoke about contaminated blood in the House. My right hon. Friend mentioned further legislation and, between now and then, more people will sadly pass on as a result of this scandal.

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has had only a few months to try to rectify the consequences of the previous Government’s slow response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s demands. Again, I urge my right hon. Friend to do everything in his power to ensure that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority hires the staff needed to address the challenges and to design the procedures required with the utmost urgency. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has got the message.

I have spoken in the House many times of my constituent Sean Cavens, who was one of the youngest people in the country to be infected with hepatitis C as a result of being given contaminated blood. He has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of fellow victims of the scandal. Many people have died waiting for justice.

At the current rate of settling claims, which is another huge issue, victims and others are concerned that many more people will die without seeing a ha’penny of compensation for themselves or their families. They question whether the Government are acting quickly enough, with only 270 claims expected to be dealt with by the end of the financial year and more than 4,500 claims in limbo. I share their concerns; I am not sure if that is good enough.

Sean is now 43 years of age. He was infected with hepatitis C and other viruses in 1983. He wonders where he fits in the selection process. He will not be alone in wondering whether he must simply hang on and hope to survive long enough to see justice done for him and his family.

While the scheme currently has no effect on payments made through the infected blood support schemes, that will cease to be the case in the new financial year. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will review that approach and extend the deadline, so that people who receive payments after 31 March 2025 do not see that deducted from compensation through the new scheme. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister consider that point?

Fundamentally, Sean and others are concerned that those currently on the infected blood support schemes are not automatically being offered the core route payment. They wonder why they cannot be offered a lump sum payment equivalent to payments up to the average life expectancy of 86. They are also concerned that the rates of compensation to be offered are rumoured—I emphasise the word “rumoured”—to be only 20% of current annual payments. I am sure that will be outlined by my right hon. Friend in his winding-up speech.

The uncertainty about the compensation scheme’s date of infection criteria is causing concern for victims. The burden of proof for those who were infected after screening for relevant viruses began is deemed by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to be “higher”, but without any clarification on what that actually means in practice. Will the Minister provide such clarification? Screening began for HIV in November 1985 and for hepatitis C in September 1991, but for hepatitis B it was as early as December 1972. As I mentioned, Sean was infected with hepatitis B in 1983. He needs to know how that will affect his final compensation. For instance, will the IBCA take into account that the screening test for hepatitis B in 1983 is estimated to have been only 43% effective? Will the IBCA recognise that victims were treated for hepatitis C with the retroviral drug Interferon, which has well known serious side effects on patients’ mental health? Will that be reflected in their compensation?

Will the Minister confirm that Sir Brian Langstaff’s recent guidance, contained in his letter dated 13 November 2024, regarding the siblings of victims who deserve compensation, will be accepted by the IBCA and reflected in any compensation scheme that it designs? Will, as Sir Brian has recommended, any family member whose relationship was “so close” to the victim that damage to their own mental or physical health caused by witnessing their sibling’s suffering was “reasonably” foreseeable receive full compensation, if they were so damaged? It has been reported that the IBCA will only compensate siblings of victims if they lived with the victim in the family unit for a full two years. Will the Minister ensure that that arbitrary restriction is not contained in any IBCA compensation scheme?

Will the Minister confirm that the family of any victim who dies before his or her application to the IBCA has been completed will receive full compensation? There are indications that the IBCA interpreted the inquiry’s final report as saying the contrary—that it intends to pay only those who live long enough to receive a final reward. That cannot, in any way, shape or form, be correct. It is not fair and it is not just.

Will the Minister ensure that those who, as children, were purposefully infected with contaminated blood in the name of medical research are awarded enhanced punitive levels of compensation, to reflect the country’s abhorrence at such horrific criminal behaviour, carried out by medical professionals who had sworn to dedicate themselves to healing the sick? That is one thing I just cannot understand. The whole tragic scandal is an absolute disgrace, but it is really abhorrent that this great country of ours experimented on little children. Those children, many of whom have not survived, deserve the compensation. How much they should be awarded is obviously to be determined, as has been stated, but bearing in mind the abhorrent nature of what we have done as a nation, I ask the Minister to ensure it is enough.

The infected and contaminated blood scandal is just one of far too many injustices in the UK in recent decades, in which powerful people have treated institutional reputations, career prospects and, in a number of cases, profits as being more important than working-class lives. Hillsborough, Orgreave, the postal service Horizon scandal and Grenfell all share this shameful characteristic: each one sent out a message that ordinary working-class lives do not matter. The Minister can take this opportunity to show that this Labour Government think that the lives of ordinary people matter by ensuring that the victims of contaminated blood products receive just and meaningful compensation without any further unconscionable delay.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Caroline Nokes

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

Thanks for that intervention. Of course it says a lot about the previous Conservative Government. We on the Labour Benches should always remember and never forget what the Conservatives do whenever they are cornered or in difficulty: they revert to type and attack the trade union movement. That is what they do and have always done. You have seen some of the contributions here this evening. [Interruption.] Do you want to intervene? [Interruption.] Oh, so are you just going to continue to chunter? And when I give the opportunity of saying something responsible—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman can sit. He has been here long enough to know that when he says “you”, he is referring to me. I sometimes let it pass when it is new Members who are not quite used to it, but he should know better.

[Ian Lavery]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, you are right, I should. I was being chuntered at by a Member on the Opposition Front Bench. My deepest apologies.

As I say, we must remember that the Conservatives revert to type.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Debate between Ian Lavery and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

It is great to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my first time in the Chamber with you in the Chair and I wish you all the best for the future.

I welcome this Government motion—it is great being on the Government side for the first time in 14 years—which fulfils another manifesto pledge within only a few days of the election. The introduction of a Modernisation Committee has already caused a lot of interesting discussion about its make-up, who should or should not be on it and why. Its introduction is important because standards and integrity in public life are important. Trust in politics is at an all-time low and trust in politicians is at rock bottom. We need to change that. The introduction of the Committee, together with other elements in the Labour party manifesto, will make a huge difference.

I will focus on second jobs. We should never forget the responsibilities and obligations that come with being an elected representative—a politician and Member of Parliament—in this mother of all Parliaments in the mother of all democracies. We should never forget what the general public put into us and their belief that we are their representative and voice in here. Many people who do not have a voice, particularly in deprived areas, put everything they have into the fact that their MP represents them fairly and justly in the Commons. That is important.

Being an MP is not a hobby; it is not something that people can just fancy doing. Perhaps people want to come on a Monday afternoon or a Monday night and leave as soon as they can, and they plead with the Whips to get away, but this is a full-time job plus. If it is not a full-time job plus for people, my view is that they are not doing the job. If someone is elected as a Member of Parliament with 70,000-odd constituents, that is a full-time job. I cannot understand how other people have been able to take up other jobs and occupations, and see being an MP as something that tops up their massive salary elsewhere, but that is what has happened and continues to happen.

I am sure hon. Members present will agree that when we were knocking on doors during the election campaign, people would often answer—99.9% of them were very polite—and say, “You’re all the same.” I was told a few times, “You’re all liars. Whatever you say beforehand, once you get into the Commons, you’re all liars.” I took great exception to that, but that is the general public’s perception. They think that MPs are greedy, they are liars, they are all the same, they want to make as much money as they can, and they are not bothered about the people they represent. That is what we have to try to clean up. I plead with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make that a priority of the Modernisation Committee. We have to clean up politics.

We are not all the same. The vast majority of people in the Commons and who are elected are genuine, decent people who are there to represent their constituents and make life better, even though that is difficult at times, but there is a huge lack of faith in politicians and politics.

Many people feel as though Members of Parliament have a decent wage, but Members with second jobs allow the perception and the narrative that MPs are selfish and greedy to continue. I am sure there are MPs who are greedy, but the general perception is that everyone is the same. When I was working at the pit, I never in a million years thought that I would be on a salary of £91,346. It is a fortune—an absolute fortune—and we have to work for it and for our constituents. The average UK salary is £35,828—in the north-east, where I live, it is under £30,000—so £91,346 is a fortune. We are paid fortunes, man! We are nearly millionaires. I know that is not true, but I make the point.

In areas of greater social deprivation, no matter what we say or do, where we perform or where we do not, how many surgeries we hold and how much casework we have, we are seen as “just one of the MPs in London”, who do not care once we get that train, bus or car to the House of Commons; it is as if we become different people. In 2023, the Office for National Statistics deemed 51% of households in Northumberland to be suffering some form of deprivation. Last year, Sky News reported that MPs earned £17 million from second incomes. That is a lot of money when many people we represent use food banks, claim in-work benefits and are suffering greatly as a consequence of the cost of living crisis, caused by 14 years of destruction by the Conservative Government. The figure of £17 million from second incomes is enormous.

The former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, earned £4.8 million from writing speeches in his last year in the previous Parliament. I have a simple question: how can someone make £4.8 million during a parliamentary year, when they are supposed to be meeting constituents? What spare time might they have? I conclude that, in many ways, such an elected representative is not doing what they should be. Another former Prime Minister, Theresa May, made £2.5 million in the last year of the previous Parliament. Exactly the same issue arises. A former Conservative Minister earned £6 million as a commercial barrister since being elected to Parliament. People should not be making fortunes as lawyers when they are supposed to be in the House, determining legislation and representing their constituents. Members of Parliament should be in the House representing the people who voted for them, whether on education matters, employment or the cost of living crisis. There is enough to fill five days a week from 9 o’clock in the morning till 10 o’clock at night. Where any MP can find spare time is beyond me.

I hope the Leader of the House can guarantee that cleaning up politics is the motion’s No. 1 priority. As I have said, I believe that most people who are elected to the House are here for the right reasons. By the way, MPs have to have skins like rhinos because we get hammered right, left and centre, regardless of what we vote, or do not vote, for.

The motion is a great way forward and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has tabled it. It will address the issues I have raised. We lost credibility through the sleaze that happened, particularly during covid. People believed that all MPs were making but not obeying the rules. We must change that perception. The Modernisation Committee, along with other measures in the Labour manifesto, will go a long way towards restoring trust with the general public. It is much needed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Responsible Dog Ownership

Debate between Ian Lavery and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have mentioned dog breeding, but only slightly, and I agree fully with those sentiments. There are so many issues involved in responsible dog ownership. That is a main issue, and I hope to cover the rest later in my contribution.

The first of the three main issues arising from the written ministerial statement was a requirement that dogs be microchipped with the owner’s details. The second was a change in the criminal law, in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, to extend the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control to all places, including private property. The third was to allow owners of dogs seized as suspected dangerous dogs or prohibited types to retain possession of their dogs until the outcome of court proceedings.

The Secretary of State said that microchipping makes a clear link between a dog and its owner. More than 100,000 dogs stray, are lost or are stolen each year, and many must be kept in kennels before being re-homed. A microchip allows them to be reunited quickly with their owners, reducing stress for dog and owner alike. It will also lead to substantial savings for local authorities and welfare charities, which spend some £57 million a year on kennelling costs, and will mean that fewer dogs are destroyed. Up to 6,000 are put down each year because their owners cannot be found.

The Government announced the introduction of regulations to require the microchipping of all dogs in England from 6 April 2016. After that date, owners will need to have their dog microchipped and registered on one of the authorised commercial databases available, and they will have to register the details of any new owner before they sell or give away a dog. Owners will be required to keep their contact details up to date on the microchip databases.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I fear that I might be about to incur the wrath of the Chair, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is imperative that any database, and the registration of changes of ownership, must be absolutely robust so that we do not end up with a situation like the passporting of horses? There are 75 passport issuing organisations, and nobody has confidence that a given microchip and passport link to the right horse. Does he agree that in the case of dogs, we must ensure that the system is absolutely robust?

[Ian Lavery]

Yes, of course. I fully agree, and will probably cover the issue in the next few minutes. If we are to have microchipping, it is extremely important that it is absolutely robust and foolproof. If we cannot guarantee that, we will be wasting our time.

The progress made on microchipping has been well received by all parties; it is one of the most important parts of the statement. There is still a lack of clarity, and some might say an undoubted dragging of feet, on the potential introduction of legislation in 2016.

In the Minister’s response, I should be delighted to hear further clarity on microchipping: the age at which dogs will be required to be microchipped, whether there will be any exemptions, how the law will be enforced, who will carry out the enforcement of the law and how it will be funded. Does the Minister expect enforcement to be proactive or reactive? Will microchipping a dog actually prove ownership of the animal? That is important. If a local authority receives a stray dog that is not microchipped, and if it is not claimed but in kennels, will the local authority be able to microchip the dog and re-home it? Will the requirement to keep contact details up to date on the database be cheap for dog owners? Will there be a maximum fee, to ensure that the introduction of microchipping, although most welcome, is not cost-prohibitive for many people? A lot of vulnerable people have dogs and cherish them. What education and awareness- raising will DEFRA do over the next two years to encourage compliance with the microchipping regime?

The second major issue is the suggested amendment of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Extending section 3 to cover all places, including private property, is a major step forward, and will be welcomed on both sides of the House. It will extend the law and give better protection to people in their own homes, as well as to those I mentioned previously who enter private property, such as postal workers. Again, however, more clarity is required. For example, will the extension cover going inside a private dwelling, or will it remain at the front door and just cover the front garden? What private property will the law cover? Will there be a defence for dog owners protecting their property and, if so, what will it be?

Any amendment is important because the legislation is important. To effect the change in the law, DEFRA is to introduce amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act as soon as parliamentary time permits. Put simply, there is not much disagreement in the Chamber this morning, but I disagree about the timing: it is not good enough to say that the legislative changes on private property will be introduced when there is parliamentary time. We need a guarantee that the legislation will be introduced at least in this Parliament. Indeed, we need to ensure that the legislation is introduced as soon as possible—this week would be fine as far as many people up and down the country are concerned. The Dangerous Dogs Act is seen by many as extremely poor legislation and as wholly ineffective, so it would be better to have consolidated legislation covering everything, rather than tinkering with other pieces of legislation.

The third major issue is the seizure and kennelling of suspected dangerous dogs. To ensure the welfare of suspected prohibited dogs that have become the subject of court proceedings and to ease the substantial cost to the police service, the Government have decided that the police will no longer need to seize and kennel such dogs pending the outcome of court proceedings if they do not consider the dog to present a risk to the public. The police will have the discretion to release a suspected prohibited dog when they are completely satisfied that it is in the care of a responsible owner. They will be allowed to put extra restrictions on the owner, such as requiring the dog to be muzzled and on a lead when in public. Such changes will be made by way of amendment to the exemption scheme, and can be done through secondary legislation. Someone mentioned this being the animal equivalent of an antisocial behaviour order, an ASBO, suggesting it should be a DOGBO. I have not seen that before, and I am not personally convinced, but the cross-party line is fully supportive.

The Government consider that allowing suspected prohibited dogs to be exempted from seizure in those circumstances strikes the right balance between protecting the public from potentially dangerous dogs and ensuring that the dogs are safely and properly looked after and not unnecessarily removed from their homes. There needs to be clarity on the issue. I am concerned that one or two dogs might slip through the net. I am not sure that the police are properly qualified to identify vicious or dangerous dogs. A beautiful white poodle could be totally vicious, and the biggest dog in the world could be quite placid and not vicious at all. Let us be honest about that: categorisation is difficult. The police are extremely talented at deciding about individuals and personalities from how they react, but I am not sure that they are well qualified to determine which dogs may be vicious and what owners must do to retain possession of their dog during a court case, if indeed they want to.

Further clarity is required. For example, is the Government’s proposal to allow dogs to remain with their owners effective at the point of potential seizure, or at the discretion of the police once the dog has been seized and kept in kennels? Has DEFRA made an estimate of the percentage of dogs seized each year that are likely to be affected by the proposal? If so, what is that percentage and how did the Department arrive at it? Why has DEFRA not looked at the court processes more closely, to require a time limit on expert witness exams for all dogs seized? I have already posed a whole number of questions, to which I have added more, but many issues need clarification, probably on all sides, to continue constructive dialogue.

With the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee highlighting the need for a more fundamental approach to dog control, will the Government commit to updating and consolidating all dog control legislation? Will DEFRA commit to asking the Law Commission to conduct a review into dog control legislation, as per the Select Committee recommendations? Will DEFRA be providing any new money for training and education? The money that was mentioned in the written statement and subsequently, which I have not discussed yet, appears to have been spent already, as far as the Opposition can see. There is no new money.

I want to place on record my congratulations to my own authority, Northumberland county council: the public protection service’s animal welfare team has been awarded a gold footprint in this year’s RSPCA community animal welfare footprints scheme. The team at Northumberland county council ensure the highest standards of stray dog welfare during the collection and kennelling process; they carry out proactive work to educate owners and preventive measures to reduce strain and long-term stays. Although some north-east councils have achieved the silver and bronze awards, Northumberland was the only council in the north-east to achieve the gold footprint award in 2012, so good on it. It is good to see that in my region we are being proactive in putting the right resources into responsible dog ownership.

Members might be aware that I have an interest in greyhounds—indeed, I have owned and raced a number of them in recent years, with varying success—and I have been a very responsible owner. The greyhound is a truly remarkable athlete. It is one of the oldest breeds in the world: it is mentioned in the Bible, in Chaucer and in Shakespeare, no less. It is arguably the most protected of all canine breeds. The introduction of the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was a major advance, helping to raise welfare standards across greyhound racing, and we can take a leaf out of that book. All the 30 or so greyhound tracks in England must be licensed and inspected, as must their owners and their owners’ properties. That is about responsible ownership. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain is the regulator and looks after greyhounds’ welfare in the UK.