Contaminated Blood

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for the work they have done in exposing this issue. When Alex Smith, a constituent of mine, first came to my advice surgery to tell me the story of how he lost his wife through contamination and how he had contracted hepatitis C through a contaminated blood product, I could not help but feel aggrieved on his behalf. It now feels, however, as though this has moved on to something completely different—a very sinister cover-up—and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work in exposing it and for getting this far.

[Andy Burnham]

I think it has such a feel. For me, the whole thing about finance—it is always about finance, and about whether we can give them a bit more—has been helpful to the Government, because it has meant that they have never focused on the issue they should really focus on. As I said at the beginning, if this had been known about, the wave of support behind the people struggling to find out the truth would have been massive—absolutely massive—and the Government would have had nowhere to go and would have had to respond. Consequently, people are still struggling, such as my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I hope that they will not have to struggle for much longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Thank you for your courtesy in allowing us to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I fully accept that we ought to have spoken before the Minister responded. I have to say that I expected her response to go on for longer, and that I would have had an opportunity to make a short intervention on her.

I feel compelled to speak because one of my constituents, Alex Smith, has been so badly affected by this. It is not just me who is affected when I see the Government refusing, time after time, to do the right thing. It genuinely haunts me. None of us comes into politics to do the wrong thing. We come here to try to make the country a better place and to give a voice to people who have been ignored. These people have been ignored for such a long time, and it just feels as though the abuse is going on and on. Fear went through my body when the Minister stood to read from her folder and it became clear that she was determined to go down the cul de sac of denial and deferral. Mark my words, while there is breath in my body and in those of the people on this side of the Chamber, this issue will not go away. More than that, if this issue is not resolved, it will haunt the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing this important debate. This subject has been the source of much stress for members of the community and staff who live in the area.

My approach is usually to be supportive of local institutions, particularly because my first proper job was as an apprentice at North Manchester general hospital, or Crumpsall as we call it locally. It is where I was born. The Royal Oldham hospital is where my eldest son and my partner were born; Fairfield is where my youngest son was born. We are very much part of the community infrastructure, so naturally I feel protective of it—it is like a family—and that is right and proper, but it does not mean that we defend the indefensible. Things have taken place that have affected people’s lives. Deaths that could have been avoided have occurred. Family members who have tried to get answers have been frustrated and have been met with a culture of closing down and restricting information. Usually, people just want to get answers to help the grieving process and to find out what has taken place.

I very much share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on the Healthier Together programme, which runs on one stream, and a separate desire, with different drivers, to take the North Manchester hospital away from the Pennine trust. There are different forces at play in the background. The clinician approach, Healthier Together, is about making sure the infrastructure in place meets the demands of the community. Then there is a power game at play, which is about taking North Manchester hospital out and making an enlarged Manchester trust that covers the city boundaries. I am yet to be convinced that that is being done with patients in mind, rather than other things—although, of course, I want to be convinced, because those patients are my constituents, my family members and my friends too, so it is important.

When I speak to staff, I see an organisation where people are working hard, trying to make a difference—people who came into public service because they wanted to be good public servants—but who feel that they are waiting for the next criticism. They are waiting to be named and shamed in the local paper; they are waiting for the next inspection to take place that says they are not doing what they need to do. The vast majority of the 9,000 staff are doing a good job. They came into public service in the NHS because they wanted to be good public servants and we need to bear that in mind—we owe most of those people a debt of gratitude. People have been let down, but lives have also been saved—there are people who would not be here today if not for the work that the hospitals have done and babies who have been born into the world who perhaps would not be here if not for the people who work in that place—but there is no doubt that there are issues of culture, leadership and resources.

The culture needs to be more open and transparent. It needs to be more of a learning trust that is open about when mistakes are made and learns from them, rather than being defensive and withholding information, which is my experience from supporting constituents.

Leadership needs to be visible and proactive. It needs to give people a sense that the future is better than the past. If all people see is a constant cycle of criticism, downgrading and talking down, that will not create the conditions to improve the hospital, which is not good for anybody. I welcome the appointment of Sir David Dalton, who has a good track record, but building the capacity and support in the organisation to make sure that it can improve in the way that it needs to goes beyond him. There is a body of staff—our constituents, our family members and our friends—who really want to see that place turned round, but capacity and resources are really important.

I am not saying that all of the issues in the trust are about money, because they run far deeper than that, but resources are important. There is a reason why the trust has an over-reliance on agency staff, why it struggles to recruit and retain high-quality clinicians and staff and why it is not able to get the surety that it needs in the longer term—it is resourcing, and it is also the estate.

A transformation plan has been submitted to Government—we know that there will be a plan in place to improve leadership and culture, but in places, the estate, particularly at the Royal Oldham hospital, is not fit for purpose. Some of it dates back to its opening in 1870 as a workhouse hospital. There have been improvements since then, but in some places the estate, as a place to manage and organise, is just not fit for purpose. It requires cash investment and I plead with the Minister to make sure that money is made available to ensure that the hospital can be all it can be.

My final plea, which chimes with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton, is that we all have a duty to be part of the solution to turn the trust round and to make sure that each of the hospitals performs to the best of its ability. We will not do that if all we do is focus on the past. The past is important for context, and in order to get answers for people who have had bad treatment and need those answers, but it is not a foundation for positive progress, which is what the hospitals need. We need to work across parties on this issue—it is beyond party politics—to make sure that resourcing is right and the proper challenge and leadership is in place. That is an open offer, from my point of view, and from that of other Members here today, and I hope it is taken up.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

We come into politics not for title or high office, but because we care and want to make a difference to people’s lives. If I ever get round to writing a list of my political heroes, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has secured her place on it for all she has done for the many people affected by this—not just those who have been infected, but their families and loved ones, and people grieving the loss of someone who they thought would have longer than they had. A big difference is being made for them, but we still have a long way to go to secure real justice.

I am here to represent my constituent Alex Smith. He is infected with hepatitis C. That is bad in itself, but to add insult to that his wife died from the same infection, which was contracted from a blood transfusion while giving birth. He has suffered the loss of his wife, he has raised children by himself, he has been ill, and he has not been able to work. I resent the fact that the approach to this feels inhumane. It feels as though the starting point is how much money the Government are willing to pay rather than looking at things from the point of view of a human being.

I really struggle with the idea that the best on offer is to enable the victims of blood contamination to live just above the poverty line. The hopes, dreams, ambitions and potential of so many people have been ruined not just by the contamination, but by the treatment they have received from the hospitals when trying to find out information and get hold of their medical records, through poor diagnosis and treatment, and in trying to get justice and fair funding so that they can live a decent life.

It is more than just the infection that has now taken hold of people; it is the whole issue and the way it has been handled. It has dominated the lives of tens of thousands of people. Their lives have been put on hold while they have tried to get answers and justice. They have tried to just about keep their heads above water, but sometimes the bailiffs knock on the door or the red letter comes because they are unable to pay the utility or council tax bill or the rent.

I feel that the Government have a duty. They should not be held accountable for what went on in the ’70s and ’80s —we cannot expect that of them, although we obviously owe an apology on behalf of the nation—but we can judge them by their response today. I feel that their response lacks humanity and lacks recognition of the pain and suffering so many have gone through. They seem unwilling to provide answers and justice to the people affected.

I absolutely support the call for an independent inquiry. There are many questions that still need to be answered, not just for the victims and their families, but so that we can make sure the same mistakes do not happen again. I read the Manchester Evening News yesterday which told of an excellent but heart-breaking investigation that was carried out into how patients were treated by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. There were stories about children who died as a result of ill treatment. What was most hurtful was not just the poor treatment, but the fact that the hospital did not face up to the mistakes it had made and tried to block information from coming out. When the journalist tried to get that information it was withheld and efforts were frustrated. The information needed to be released in the public interest.

That is the experience of many people who are affected by blood contamination. When they requested information they ought to have been entitled to—medical records, details of who knew what and when—they were frustrated by the very organisations and institutions responsible for the infection in the first place. That is a gross injustice to those trying to make sense of what happened to them and to move on in their life. So many of them still cannot see a future, and the Government have taken far too long to come forward with a comprehensive plan to address the questions and give the answers that are very much needed.

I urge the Government, for no party political gain whatever—this is beyond party politics; this is about human beings—to come forward with a properly funded and logical scheme that does not just keep people out of poverty, but reflects the fact that they have the right to a decent and fulfilling life. The answer should really unpeel the lid and get the information people desperately want to know about who knew what and when and how this happened. We need to learn lessons so that this does not happen again.

We are debating this specific issue today, but there are many people who are affected by poor public service and who are frustrated when they try to get answers. If there is one thing this place can do, it is apologise if an apology is needed, but more than that, we can be the champions for justice and help people get the answers they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicola Blackwood]

I would like to move on to some other issues because we are quite tight for time.

I would like to talk about the budget that has been allocated, because it has been mentioned on a number of occasions. The pressures on the health budget will come as no surprise to anyone here today—we had an animated debate about that just this week. I would like to assure everybody in the House that, even in the context of those pressures, we fought hard to protect the money for this scheme through tough budget negotiations so that we could fulfil commitments that were made and ensure that the concerns of those affected are addressed as far as possible.

In that context, I would like to talk in a little more detail about some of the concerns that have been raised today by colleagues. Colleagues have rightly raised the issue of support for the bereaved and those relying on discretionary payments. That is why we have introduced the one-off payment of £10,000 to bereaved partners or spouses of primary beneficiaries, where infection contributed to the primary beneficiary’s death, and in recognition of their relationship at the time of death.

[Jim McMahon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I will in one second. I just want to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North about the certification of death. We understand that death certification may not state a direct contribution, so the policy that is to be published will recognise other ways to show a causal link between infection and death. We would like to make sure that issues around that are not a barrier to support under the scheme.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the Minister for giving way on that point, which she has partly answered in her contribution. However, could we just get some clarity on cases where the death certificate is marked “unascertained” and on whether there will be more flexibility around that, providing that the hepatitis can be proven?

[Nicola Blackwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Those are exactly the issues that are being wrestled with at the moment by the Department, and we are trying to resolve them.

We realise that the accessibility of the payment scheme for the bereaved, but also of the discretionary support scheme, will be important, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I am not able to give the complete details of the discretionary scheme at the moment. In 2017-18, a new, single discretionary scheme will replace the three discretionary support schemes that are currently in place. It will have an increased budget, and it will be transparent and flexible so that it can support the beneficiaries who are most in need. However, until those details are fully worked out, it would not be fair for me to speculate on exactly what they will be. I want to reassure hon. Members, however, that until we are in a position to introduce that new system, the current discretionary payments will stay in place.

I would also like to reassure hon. Members that the policy of paying bereaved partners and spouses £10,000 will be published by the Department of Health, and it will be communicated to all major stakeholders, including the APPG, to ensure that we reach out to those who were bereaved a long time ago and make both these policies as accessible as possible.

We realise that these payments can never make up for the personal loss bereaved partners or spouses have experienced, but we are trying to make sure that the process is as smooth and effective as possible, with as few barriers as possible, so that individuals do not feel as though they are trying to jump through hoops.

Community Pharmacies

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Here we are again, debating more slash-and-burn cuts to vital public services. Generations and decades of investment are being eroded in just a few short years. What will be left?

I think we all accept that if we can make savings in the public sector, we should do so, because we should use the money to the best possible effect. But it is short-sighted to take money away from community services when the accepted logic is that those services save money in the long run. It beggars belief that we are debating this again.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

In my constituency, local pharmacies and GPs are working collaboratively to build an integrated health centre in Haydock. Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Government say they want to encourage such working, their actions, as usual, do not match their words, because they are cutting the funding that would make that long-term, sustainable investment worthwhile?

[Jim McMahon]

I share that view entirely. My preferred option would be to devolve that power with fair funding to local areas, so that they can decide. The Government have proved time and again that they do not understand or value the public services that our communities rely on.

Let me tell Members what it is like in Oldham. We have 57 community pharmacies, nine of which have 100-hour contracts and four of which offer delivery services. That is about 25 pharmacies per 100,000 residents. Ask the public how they perceive those pharmacies, and 93% say that those pharmacies are doing a good job, while 88% of people in Oldham use those pharmacies. They are respected, and they are used by the community. When asked, the main reason people gave for using those pharmacies was their proximity and location. People could get to those pharmacies to access the services that they needed.

The truth is that we do not need fewer pharmacies; we need more, because demand is going up. I am not the only one who says so. The local health and wellbeing board says so in a 90-page review of pharmaceutical support in Oldham. It says that we have enough pharmacies to meet current demand, but that demand is going up because people are living longer, because the population is increasing and because new homes are—as the Government want—being built in the area to support new families. That requires the infrastructure to be in place.

Many wards in the borough do not have pharmacies that are open at weekends, so it is not as though we have a gold-plated service. We are just about getting by. It is not as though pharmacists are twiddling their thumbs behind the counter waiting for somebody to walk through the door. The average number of prescriptions dispensed by those outlets is 7,000 a month. We really need to think about what we are doing, whether the money is in the best possible place and whether we are valuing the real saving that can be derived further down the line.

I am not the only one who says that pharmacies can help us to achieve savings. PwC, which is hardly a standard bearer for public services, has said that pharmacies in the community save £3 billion a year. Why? Because people do not have to go to the GP or present to A&E, and because prevention is far better than cure. That is exactly what community pharmacists are there to do.

I really worry about what we are going to do to the industry and to the profession—that community service—which people aspire to be part of. I can tell Members what community pharmacists are saying, because I have a letter from a local pharmacist who lives in the Werneth area of my constituency. Mr Khan studied hard through school, sixth-form college and university to set up his own pharmacy. He works very long hours; although he is funded to work 40 hours a week, he actually works 50 hours a week—10 hours a week free of charge to the NHS—because he believes in a community service. He provides a delivery service, which is not paid for by the NHS, where he takes prescriptions out to the public. For a lot of the people he meets, he might be the only person they see during the week. According to the estimates in the report that I referred to, 15,000 more people in my borough will be living alone by 2017. Loneliness and isolation are real issues, and such community infrastructure is an important way of combating them.

I want to read out an important quote from the pharmacist I have mentioned. He said:

“Many of us, however, feel betrayed, angry and confused right now because the government who promised to make Pharmacy at the heart of the NHS; has ripped the very heart out of Pharmacy.”

It is not me or the Labour party saying that, but a pharmacist. They have studied hard and worked hard to set up their own business, and they work hard every day for their community, but they are being let down by this callous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I will not go through the many arguments made by hon. Members, but the reason I do not support the Opposition motion is that I do not agree with their argument about funding. The current funding system for pharmacies in this country is not working. Pharmacies have grown organically in a haphazard way, not necessarily meeting the needs of patients or the changing demands of healthcare.

I find it extraordinary that Opposition Members are satisfied that big national companies such as Sainsbury’s, Boots and Asda, many of which make profits of £1 billion a year, are being funded with NHS money, which goes to each and every one of their branches. That is completely unacceptable. [Interruption.] I will not give way because there is not enough time. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) that the money that is saved through these changes must go to community pharmacies and away from big business.

I have severe concerns about the proposals on the table, however, and I have met the Minister to raise them. The first is my fear that the role of the pharmacist is not properly understood. As a practising nurse, I see at first hand every day the role that pharmacists play in safeguarding patients. Doctors often make out prescriptions that are wrong or do not take into account current medications a patient is on. That is where the pharmacist comes in. Thinking that pharmacists simply stand at a counter, pick a box off a shelf and put a sticker on it is misguided; they do a huge amount more.

Another concern is the proposal or recommendation that we move towards either GP dispensing or GP practices housing pharmacists. I know from talking to my GP practices that they are bursting at the seams. It is not as simple as installing a pharmacist at a practice; pharmacists need storage space for their medication, temperature-controlled rooms and space to make up that medication. I know that my GP practices do not have that space right now. I also have concerns about GPs’ taking on dispensing; as I have said, pharmacists have a crucial role in safeguarding patients. Who will pick up those mistakes, or look at patient medication or drug interaction if no pharmacist is there?

My biggest concern—again, this point was made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire—is that this is a huge missed opportunity. We are doing things the wrong way round. We should be looking at the system and at patients’ needs. We should follow the excellent model currently running in Scotland and learn from it, rather than thinking, “We need to save money. How can we best do that?”

As many Members have mentioned, there is some obvious stuff that pharmacists are doing now.

[Jim McMahon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Caulfield]

I will not—as I have said, time is short.

Right now, pharmacists are running clinics for asthma, blood pressure and thyroid issues. But we are not seeing what pharmacists could do. They are highly experienced and highly qualified. They should have registers of patients and be referring people to clinicians and hospitals themselves. They should be a second point of primary medical care. I cannot support the Opposition, because they are wrong that this is only about saving money. It is much bigger than that, and should be an opportunity to improve primary care overall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

As many colleagues have pointed out, not just today, but in previous Westminster Hall and other debates, cuts of £170 million to pharmacy funding will decimate NHS primary care. It could force up to 3,000 pharmacies to close their doors to the public. In Lancashire alone, 387 pharmacies are at risk. I am deeply concerned about that. It will put an intolerable amount of pressure on front-line NHS services. When we look at the evidence, we find that 25% of the 2 million people who normally seek advice from their community pharmacy would visit their GP instead if they could not get it from their pharmacy. Other NHS services, which are already facing sustained attack from the Health Secretary, will become even more stretched.

I am particularly concerned about the impact on innovative and pioneering models of primary care that are provided through pharmacies. My local pharmacy in Baxenden, for example, is a healthy living pharmacy, ensuring that its provision is localised and preventive. I believe that all pharmacies should look to achieve such added value. This tiered commissioning framework, of which healthy living pharmacies are part, has been praised by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee for its successes in reducing smoking, alcoholism and obesity. The majority of users do not have to go elsewhere for their health advice; they can use their local pharmacy instead of their local GP. Indeed, 70% of people who visit pharmacies do not regularly access other healthcare services. The healthy living pharmacy framework should be rolled out across Lancashire and should be part of the primary care review.

[Jim McMahon]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the pharmacy access scheme is more about the Tories buying off their Back Benchers than delivering the services that he mentions?

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which was also made by our Front-Bench spokesperson, who rightly observed that most of the cuts will fall in deprived areas, while the exemptions will be mostly in wealthy areas. The Government must address why they favour those who have the fewest health issues and are almost punishing those who face the greatest health challenges. The cuts will do precisely the opposite of what the Minister claims. The value-added local pharmacies in those areas will be undermined completely by the cuts. As a result, community centre provision in some of the most deprived areas might well be eroded, reduced or lost altogether. The personal relationship between patient and pharmacist will be lost, which brings me to my final point.

If these cuts go ahead, what will be the future of primary care? My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) has stated on several occasions that an Amazon model of delivery could take the place of community-centred pharmacies. Remote warehouses with box shifters driven by profit are proliferating. They are unable to provide a localised service and are unwilling to carry out primary care. They could be a dangerous replacement for community pharmacies, and that is on top of the cuts that the Government are making. This is a double whammy. Instead of promoting a primary care model that includes pharmacies at the centre, we are undermining it with these cuts.

Pharmacies in my constituency have expressed concern about this trend. They inform me that some of the warehouse pharmacies have already used patients’ personal data for marketing purposes. I have seen evidence from a company called Pharmacy4U—a mail order company—of feigned official NHS letters targeting repeat prescription users, many of whom were vulnerable. In reality, these letters were switch approval forms. This is a worrying sign of things to come if the cuts go ahead. I urge the Government to think again.

Land Registry

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I speak in my capacity as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. I pay tribute to the speech by, and the motion in the name of, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).

As has been said, more than 350,000 people have signed an online petition, and objections have been raised by, among others, the Open Data Institute, which warns that the proposed privatisation will build barriers in the data infrastructure, inhibit GDP growth and reduce the tax revenue that would be received from price paid data that the publicly owned Land Registry releases.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the report and investigation by the New Economics Foundation, which has argued that it is inappropriate to privatise the Land Registry—that the privatisation is politically motivated to reduce national debt in the short term—because the Land Registry, as a trading fund, is self-financing and brings in a surplus of £100 million a year. It performs well, with a 95% customer satisfaction rating. It concerns me that 3,500 jobs are at risk as a result of the privatisation.

There is also a risk of increased property fraud if the Land Registry is privatised. Currently, Her Majesty’s Land Registry invests heavily in this area at significant cost. The Land Registry deals with a large amount of personal data and the details of borrowing, secured debt and even court orders, because they form part of the land register.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

That is an important point. One thing that occurred to me is that although there is a great deal of value in the land that is titled and registered, there is also quite a lot of value in land that is unregistered. Of course, the Land Registry makes the assessment as to whether people have a legitimate claim on that land.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I will come on to that. The New Economics Foundation states in its research that only an in-house Land Registry can continue to deliver a quality, trusted and impartial public service while fairly bringing in new revenue. In the research, the foundation also revealed that the Government’s assurances about the service are meaningless, because no risk assessment has been undertaken; and that a private company, naturally seeking to maximise profits, would inevitably put up fees to achieve an increased profit margin. There are also risks in the proposals to all users of the system, to any future Government planned infrastructure build, to the housing market, to the wider economy and to the national interest as increasing amounts of land are sold off, all too often to unknown overseas individuals and companies, as has been said.

Contaminated Blood

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I want to express my admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the sterling work that she has done in raising the matter. I know from personal experience that she is a formidable campaigner on this issue.

An MP has no greater responsibility than to give a voice to those who feel as though they are not being heard, and I want to use this opportunity to tell the story of my constituent Alex Smith of Chadderton. Quite a lot of the debate has been about finance, and that is important. It is evident from the consultation and from the Government that the driver from their point of view is to squeeze this for every penny they can. However, I want to talk about the real human cost—the everyday cost for those affected.

Alex is ill. He struggles to get out and about. He often feels worn out and unable to live the fulfilling life that we take for granted. Despite his physical difficulties, he is to many, including me, an inspiring man. He has shown great strength of character, resilience and a pride that is the culture of many in our town. His story is not just heart-breaking, but unjust. In a fair society, those who are wronged should have fairness and the wrong should be put right.

Alex and his wife Brenda celebrated the arrival of their son in 1980. To put on record how long the family has waited for real justice, let me say that during that period—from the blood contamination to getting answers, getting proper compensation and, now, fighting for enough money just to pay the bills—I was born in a hospital down the road, went to nursery, went to primary school, went to secondary school, went to college, went out to work and had two sons of my own, of whom the eldest will leave school in two years’ time. In the period that Alex has had to wait for justice, I have lived my life, and I have done so without many of the difficulties that Alex has had. That justice is no justice whatsoever.

A year after her son’s birth in 1980, Brenda was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She received treatment for that, including a blood transfusion. Separately, Alex, being a good citizen, gave blood in 1995, like hundreds and thousands of others. From the sample test, it was discovered that he had hepatitis C. To be honest, he did not really know what it was. He was told that, with treatment, it might well clear up. He went for treatment, and received most of it, but it was stopped early for other reasons. He thought that that was it.

Over the course of three years, Alex noticed he was becoming forgetful. He put that down to getting older and having a few senior moments, but it got worse and he became increasingly worn out, tired and lethargic. He struggled, but he had the support of his wife and family by his side. To fast-forward 10 years, the family had another tragedy when his wife Brenda passed away. The coroner ruled that the case was inconclusive and the cause of the death was recorded as “unascertained”. We can imagine the grief the family went through, and throughout this time Alex continued to struggle, each and every day, with things we might take for granted.

In 2011, Alex visited his doctor again and underwent a routine blood test. He discovered that the hepatitis C had not gone away and was still there. He went through further treatment, but instead of making him feel better, it made him feel much worse. At that point, he was determined not just to get treatment, but to get answers. His quest started at the hospital where he felt it all began. The records had been destroyed, so he realised that if he was to get real justice and to get answers, he would have to track down the people who were there at the time.

Alex’s mission led him to Bangor in north Wales, where the retired surgeon living there confirmed that Alex had had a blood transfusion with what was likely to be contaminated blood. That made him think, “If I received contaminated blood, could it be that Brenda, who received treatment in the same hospital, also received contaminated blood and may have had hepatitis C as well?” He went to the hospital to find the records, and the records said that Brenda had had hepatitis C. Cruelly and inexplicably, the hospital had not told Brenda and Alex that. It was only when he went back through the medical records years later that that was discovered.

Alex applied to the Skipton Fund and received compensation for himself and his wife, as a surviving stage 1 widower, but that did not make him feel any better physically. He describes every day—let us just imagine this—as waking up with aching flu. Imagine waking up every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, with the flu and no end in sight. How would that drag us down and make daily life feel?

Alex and Brenda did not ask to be infected. Alex did not ask to spend his life in pain and poverty, or to be made to feel, during this consultation, as though he is begging for something that he is not entitled to. His life has been taken away. He wants justice, fairness and closure. He wants to be able to stop the campaign that has been necessary to get justice, and to live a decent lifestyle.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very serious and sympathetic case. As well as people’s suffering, is there not also the issue of their unrealised potential—the hopes dashed, the dreams never lived, the potential never reached? It is on that account that we really owe it to these people to speak up—I do so on behalf an unidentified constituent who does not want me to give his name—and urge the Minister to address the issue.

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Lady makes an absolutely excellent point. When Alex came to my office in Oldham, he told me that with his compensation payment he had bought a van to go and work self-employed, but his illness stopped him and eventually he had to sell the van, which had ended up sitting on his driveway. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that people have been denied opportunities that many in this House would take for granted. It is far more than simply an aching pain, or not knowing whether tomorrow will be better than today; opportunities have been stolen from people. Given that it is the state’s responsibility to put this matter right, we owe it as a nation to do so once and for all.

The payments we are talking about will seem quite small to many people here. In some ways, that is what makes this so unfair and so cruel. In one of the richest nations in the world, we are talking about penny-pinching from the poorest people in society, who did not choose to be in this situation and who need a way forward. A £2,000 payment taken away, or a winter fuel allowance, or prescription payments—support is being taken away. It is important to say that the £2,000 payments do not go to everyone, but are for people whose income is 70% below the average in that area. I do not want to make party political points, but it is a bit difficult not to do so when the Government of the day could put the matter right but are choosing instead to drag it out and prolong the agony and pain.

When Members vote in the Lobby of this House, we will be voting after having received a pay rise this year. Well done, all of us—aren’t we fantastic? Well, the people out there are not asking for a pay rise. They are asking just to get by—to have the money to pay the bills—and for justice. The Minister has the opportunity to put the matter right once and for all. She should take it.