Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we do need a timescale. I will cover that later.

There are concerns that elements of the compensation system still require change, and that some of the decision making is arbitrary and not consistent with what had been promised. I will attempt to go through those concerns. Unethical testing is the most disturbing and distressing aspect of this horrible affair. People—most of them children at the time—were used as human lab rats. Former Treloar’s pupils have described themselves as “cheaper than chimps” for experimenting on. The Government have increased the payment for those who attended Treloar’s school from £25,000 to £60,000, which is a welcome step in the right direction, and for those who were experimented on as children elsewhere from £25,000 to £45,000.

But we should stop to consider for a moment what this compensation is for. These children, without their knowledge, were given contaminated products so that the effects could be studied by the state—the state that should have been there to protect them. Imagine being one of the victims and reflecting on what the state has done to you, knowing that your life has been altered and shortened, and that you have lost friends. I spoke to one parent who described looking at her three children and knowing that she would never see them grow up to be adults or get married, and never see her grandchildren. The top price for that is £60,000. The message was, “If you are a pharmaceutical company, come to Britain. We have set the price low enough that you can carry out experiments on anyone, and then pay the fine and still make money.” What these people have lost is priceless, and £60,000 is nowhere near enough. The issue is not just the size of the compensation, but the gravity of what took place and its immorality. That has to be addressed, and these payments go nowhere near doing so. They should be withdrawn to allow a proper dialogue to take place with the infected and affected, so that an appropriate solution can be reached. We must recognise the losses that these people have endured since childhood.

Some recognition has to be given in the new regulations to the impact of interferon treatment for those infected with hepatitis. The changes are time-limited to two years for financial loss, and one year for the care award. The compensation scheme cannot continue to ignore the real-life effect on victims of long-term interferon treatment, and the associated costs, which are far higher than the time-limited uplifts that the Government propose introducing.

Treatment for interferon is not recognised when it comes to additional injury awards. Those awards must be paid to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other harms they may have suffered. Then there is the situation with hepatitis B. Why are people infected with hepatitis B not given equal treatment in the compensation packages with those infected with hepatitis C?

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend may be aware of the work that the National Audit Office has done, looking at different compensation schemes. Does he think that there are lessons that this and any future Government need to take on board when proposing a compensation scheme? Some matters are dealt with by compensation, and some through bureaucratic procedures of the civil service; other resolutions come about as a result of a campaign, like the one he led with others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). Are there lessons from this that should be applied more widely, and has he had conversations with the Government about taking that approach?

[Clive Efford]

I have not had conversations with the Government about an approach like that, but I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I will address that later. The Government need to learn lessons, and to set up a system, so that we do not have to learn all over again all the lessons of paying compensation and implementing inquiries’ recommendations every time this happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

Yes, I agree. We keep repeating the experience with inquiry after inquiry. The time has come for us to set up a body that retains that experience so that it can represent the people who have been wronged and ensure that the issues that have been raised by them, through whatever inquiry has taken place, can be addressed.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

There are some discussions going on about how there should be oversight of Government’s acceptance of recommendations from public inquiries. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) talked about the statutory option, but there are also discussions about whether Select Committees should have a role in that space. That would bring the matter right to the heart of Parliament, in full view of the public. Sunlight shone on things means they might be followed through. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) have any thoughts on that process?

[Clive Efford]

It would be an improvement if we were to set up a system that reviewed what action is taken in response to inquiries. For instance, if we had acted on the recommendations of the inquiry into the Lakanal House fire, we might not have had the Grenfell fire. Those things are just left to gather dust on a shelf, and we need to address that. We must set up a body for compensation payments so that skills and experience are not lost and do not have to be learned time and again. We must also have a duty of candour; the Hillsborough law must be introduced in its entirety.

One person whom I know the campaigners, the infected and the affected would like to thank, overall, is Sir Brian Langstaff. I will finish with his address at the remembrance service at St Paul’s. He said that the catastrophe was no accident, and quoted the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who said on the publication of the final report in 2024:

“We must fundamentally rebalance the system so that we finally address the pattern of injustice, so familiar from other inquiries, such as Hillsborough, where innocent victims have to fight for decades just to be believed.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 666.]

In response, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, said that

“we must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 750, c. 668.]

In the conclusion to his oration, Sir Brian said:

“Putting into practice these principles—prioritising patients’ safety, embracing candour, transparency and involvement, recognising and remedying injustice, truly valuing people—is a challenge for the here and now. These principles need to be not just matters of words, but together provide a practical route map to follow.”

Had we been following Sir Brian’s advice, we would have got to the truth much earlier, saved lives and perhaps avoided other catastrophes. As we go forward, we must heed his words, involve people, value them, listen to them and act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Everybody can see that the conflict is causing serious economic damage in this country and countries around the world. The right hon. Member’s claim of a windfall for the Government is politically misleading and economically illiterate.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q5. Poor housing and temporary accommodation is having a devastating impact on families, their life chances, our schools and communities. Will the Prime Minister put the full weight of Government behind ensuring that new developments in London are delivering for Londoners, not private investors and landlords, including on the Billingsgate market site in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum)?

[The Prime Minister]

We inherited a housing crisis in London, including record numbers of children living in temporary accommodation, because the Conservatives failed to build the homes that we need. We are building those homes, and I am looking forward to next week, when Labour will deliver more security for tenants, through our Renters’ Rights Act 2025. I commend Hackney council, my hon. Friend’s council, on getting on with building affordable homes. What a stark contrast to the Green party, which has opposed 42,000 new homes across the capital and counting.

Hatzola Ambulance Attack

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I can absolutely provide the right hon. Gentleman with the assurance that he rightly seeks. I hope he will have seen the responses earlier from the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, and I hope he understands the seriousness with which the Government take these issues. He is right to challenge us in the way he has, but I give him an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which we take these issues. We will ensure that the police and intelligence agencies have all the resources they need to target those who would seek to cause division and disruption within our Jewish communities. Those communities are precious and valued within our country, and this Government will do everything we can to support them.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who met Hatzola in her constituency, how only half an hour after the attack, volunteers were taking calls to support people. Hatzola does amazing work across Hackney, the borough that I partly represent, supporting Homerton hospital in particular. It is much more than just a nice-to-have; it is an essential part of our health service.

The Minister rightly raises the wider issues. My constituency has a smallish Jewish community, and I have a few constituents who are frightened to leave their homes and whose children are frightened to bring friends home from school, and not just because of what happened today—this was the case prior to that. They are living their life in a diminished form. Can the Minister give us a bit more information about how the cohesion strategy will help to educate adults, as the Bell inquiry will help to change the curriculum in our schools?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of the cohesion strategy. I assure her that there is a lot of work on this issue being led by colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we are working to ensure that it is joined up with all the different Departments. We completely recognise the concerns and fears that have been expressed by members of the Jewish community, and we are determined to make sure that the response of this Government is necessary and proportionate, given the nature of the threat that they face.

Middle East

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

In relation to the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, there is co-ordination going on for that very reason. As I set out in my statement, there have been 20 Iranian-backed plots to take action on our streets, all of which have been thwarted—I pay my respects to our security and intelligence services and the work that they do. In relation to his first point, two separate decisions were made over the weekend. We are in the sky taking action defensively with our allies. Among the reasons we agreed to the request from the US yesterday was that it has the capability to take out the missile launchers in Iran. That is why we gave permission for the US to use our bases: in order to reduce the threat to our citizens.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister has spoken about repatriating British citizens in the region. Will that be through the Ministry of Defence? If so, who will foot the bill: the MOD, the Treasury or those being repatriated?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working across all Departments on repatriation. At the moment, we are simply focused on working with our allies to get a plan together to get people out in the first place, and to do it as quickly and safely as possible. There is no intention to charge people for that.

Lord Mandelson

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

Without wishing to be distracted from the motion at play, I have seen Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland of all parties in successive Governments try hard to ensure that there is maximum disclosure for the people of Northern Ireland, while ensuring that national security is not compromised. I am afraid that I see things through a slightly different prism from the hon. Lady.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time and then I intend to make some progress.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

There is a well-worn route for dealing with these matters, through Humble Addresses and otherwise. Previous Humble Addresses, when the Labour party was in opposition, would sometimes name a Select Committee. I was on the receiving end of that as the then Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I genuinely want to ask the hon. Gentleman this: why did the Opposition not put in the Humble Address that this matter should go to a Select Committee? I think that there are still ways to use the Committee corridor to scrutinise anything that may be more sensitive than that which can go into the public domain.

[Alex Burghart]

I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with us that the ISC should be used in this context. I am glad that there is agreement between her and me that those on the Government Front Bench should use the ISC to act in this way. I hope that other Labour Members will take the same view as that extremely experienced parliamentarian.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As I said to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), I will take the first point away. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on the importance of the amendment, which I will come back to in moment. There are really important public policy issues that I want to deal with in that respect.

Let me return to the thrust of my speech.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will give way in a moment.

Let us be clear: no Government Minister of any political party should have behaved in the way that Peter Mandelson did, and it was absolutely disgraceful. The alleged leaking of crucial documents to help millionaires to profit in the middle of the global crash and lying to contemporaries, the Prime Minister and the public are both shameful and shameless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and then my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I am no longer the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

It seems that we are in something of a muddle here. Had the Opposition named the ISC in the Humble Address, as has happened in the past, there would have been no debate in this House. Putting all the information openly in the public domain could have risks, but there are well-worn filters through Parliament, such as through Committee corridor—various Committees could have locus in this space—to properly and sensitively handle information that, in my time, has never leaked from a Committee. Does the Minister agree? That would ensure that we on Committee corridor are holding the Government to account on behalf of Parliament. There is consensus that everybody wants as much information as possible in the public domain so that we can get to the bottom of what has happened in this egregious situation.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the existing mechanisms of scrutiny, and I give her great credit for her work. As I have said in response to Opposition Members, I will take that point away.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

7. What recent progress his Department has made on implementing a digital ID scheme.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. What recent progress he has made on the digital ID scheme.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)]

A new digital identity system is a vital part of the infrastructure that the UK needs to transform public services and accelerate digital government. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said this week, our goal is simple: to make government work better for people by joining up public services so that people do not have to fight to get the support that they need. It will be inclusive, secure and useful, and will give people more control over their data and public services than they have now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Simons]

Absolutely. By the end of this Parliament, every UK citizen who wants a digital ID will be able to get one free of charge. To deliver that, we will launch a huge digital inclusion drive across the UK, and I look forward to working with hon. Members from across the House on that, including my hon. Friend. Like Estonia, we will build the UK system to earn citizens’ trust, adhering to the principles of data minimisation and decentralisation with strong safeguards in place. We will consult imminently on how best to design that system.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I had the privilege of chairing the Public Accounts Committee for nearly a decade, and in that role I saw the challenges caused by how poor data often is across Government. In one hearing, for example, we learned that Government Departments have 13 different ways of recording an individual’s address, and there are many other issues around data. Is the Minister alert to those issues, and how will he tackle them to make sure that this system is watertight?

[Josh Simons]

My hon. Friend has deep experience of these challenges, and she is absolutely right: the reason why digital ID is so vital to the future of our public services and government is all about data. That will become ever more important in the future age of artificial intelligence. When I worked in AI, we had a saying: “garbage in, garbage out”. Bad data management produces bad public services, and that is why my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have a massive programme across Government to upgrade and secure data for the benefit of ordinary citizens.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for steering the report through his Joint Committee swiftly and sensitively, and for managing sensitive data. It is a great example of how the Committee corridor can really contribute to transparency for the public, and I look forward to the Government’s response. However, there are sensitive matters that are not covered by the existing scrutiny Committees of this House. I hope that the Minister will, on the basis of this example, be an advocate in Government for the establishment of a new Committee that can cover matters that do not currently have oversight because of their sensitivity.

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment of the work of the Joint Committee. She is right to say it is a great example of the work of a Select Committee that has constructively contributed a very significant amount of useful information that the Government will now consider in great detail.

My hon. Friend’s second point is about the creation of another Select Committee, and she will understand that that is above my pay grade. I gently point to the fact that the Government want to have a very good, close and constructive relationship with the ISC. It will be for the ISC to take a view, but that may provide a forum for further parliamentary scrutiny of those matters.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. On his first point, I agree; whether the documents and communications are from the Government or the IBCA, I am constantly pressing for plain English. To be fair to those tasked with producing those documents, some of the content is complicated, but trying to communicate in accessible ways is hugely important.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point regarding the tax exemption, he is correct, I think, in his interpretation that there is a single tax exemption. The compensation is received free of tax in the first instance, but there is no subsequent tax exemption. That is in line with general Government policy on tax exemptions across the board.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. On lessons learned, I hope he has looked at the National Audit Office’s work on different compensation schemes so that we can learn from that. I also hope that he supports the national campaign to encourage people who received a blood transfusion to get tested for hepatitis C, as two people a month are contacting the helpline to say that they were infected during the relevant period.

To press the Minister further on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), under this scheme people get compensation because they are dying due to infected blood; it is not random, coincidental or due to something else. If they happen to receive the compensation just before they die, their family will pay inheritance tax on it. The victims want to ensure that their families are properly supported, because they are no longer able to do that, so will the Minister renew his efforts to talk to the Treasury about this issue? This is a small, defined group of people, which does not need to set a more general precedent, but for this particular scheme—where the state failed people so much—the issue is an important one to resolve.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does on this. I entirely agree with her about learning lessons from the different compensation schemes across several Governments in recent decades. On her second point, regarding tax exemptions, I have set out the Government’s position, but I hear very strongly what Members are saying.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I can give the right hon. Lady that absolute assurance. The Government and both the Departments in which I serve take the importance of parliamentary scrutiny very seriously. As Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Lady conducts herself with great gravitas and, of course, I give her an assurance, on behalf of Government, that we will work closely with her and her colleagues to provide any information that they seek.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following on from the point made by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, it is vital that Parliament is able to examine what has happened here. The Government have made a commitment to transparency. We have a wrinkle, in that the National Security Adviser has been appointed as a special adviser rather than as an official, which means that he has to appear in front of a Committee of the House in camera. That is far from adequate. Will the Minister commit to engaging fully with the Committee corridor to ensure that the relevant Committees get access to information, as is normal, in a reading room, in camera or in a Cobra situation, in order to ensure that Parliament can satisfy itself of the comments that he has made so clearly at the Dispatch Box today?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for her suggestion. I hope that she, the House and Opposition Front Benchers know that my approach will always be to make as much information as possible available to colleagues, whether through the Privy Council process or through other means.

I welcome the fact that the National Security Adviser will shortly be giving evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, but I am happy to look more closely at my hon. Friend’s suggestion and to give her an assurance that we will want to work very carefully with this House and its Committees to make sure they are able to do their important job of holding this Government to account.

Official Secrets Act

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me seek to address the shadow Home Secretary’s points. He raised the question of whether China constitutes a threat or not. I think I was very clear in the language that I used. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, and as the Government set out in the strategic defence review, China presents a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”. The reality is that, in government, there is an absolute requirement to co-operate with nations all around the world. When there are areas in which we need to challenge China, of course we will do so. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will completely understand that when there are areas, in terms of economic co-operation, in which we need to work closely with China, of course we will do so, because it is absolutely in our national interest.

I referenced the comments of the previous Foreign Secretary, and the shadow Home Secretary might want to look back at what was said following the China audit. The previous Foreign Secretary was absolutely crystal clear: we will take a long-term, strategic approach to China that is rooted in the UK’s national interest. I understand why the shadow Home Secretary wants to boil down such a complex bilateral relationship into a single word, but the reality is that it is neither helpful nor sensible to do so.

The shadow Home Secretary will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with his characterisations of what he described as the “signals” that this Government have sent to China. In truth, I will not take any lessons from him on that, not least because—I have said this to him previously—it was not so long ago that a Conservative Prime Minister took the leader of China to the pub. When it comes to signals, I am not sure that the shadow Home Secretary speaks with a huge amount of authority.

The shadow Home Secretary spoke about FIRS. He knows that the Government’s position is that no decision has been taken with regard to the enhanced tier and China, and any decision taken by the Government will be announced in the normal way. FIRS is a crucial tool, and I am proud that this Government have got on and implemented it as of 1 July.

The shadow Home Secretary specifically raised the issue of the embassy in London, as I am sure other hon. Members will. He will know that China’s application to build a new embassy in London is going through an independent planning process. A final decision on planning permission will be made in due course by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I can be absolutely clear, in relation to FIRS, the nature of the threat and the embassy, that national security has been, and will continue to be, a core priority for this Government throughout the process.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about the CPS decision. I know that he understands that he is asking me about decisions made by the CPS that are entirely independent of Government. This was an independent decision made by the CPS, and it is not for any Government Minister to speculate on the reasons behind it. As I have said—I have been crystal clear—the Government are extremely disappointed with the outcome in this case, and we remain extremely concerned about the espionage threat posed to the United Kingdom.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hope that the Intelligence and Security Committee will get a good chance to dig into what has happened in this place, because we are hampered in the Chamber by not being able to look at sensitive issues. I also hope that the Minister will lend his weight to the approval of many senior Members of this House, prior to the last election—it got as far as the last Prime Minister—to create a Committee to look at sensitive spending, but also sensitive issues. In the summer, this Government chose to reintroduce extradition arrangements with Hong Kong, despite the application of the Chinese security Act. Given what the Minister has said today, how can we square both of those positions?

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope that my hon. Friend knows that this Government hugely appreciate and respect the relationship we have with Hongkongers. Through the processes in place, we will absolutely ensure that nobody, be they a Hongkonger or any other nationality, is extradited for reasons of political expediency. I can also point her to the important work, which we take incredibly seriously, on transnational repression. I previously made a statement to this House, and I hope that she and others understand the seriousness with which we take these activities. We are working closely with our international allies, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that the UK is a hard target for these threats, wherever they might originate.