Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Debate between Meg Hillier and Clive Efford(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 They should be withdrawn to allow a proper dialogue to take place with the infected and affected, so that an appropriate solution can be reached.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.
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.
Rwanda Plan Cost and Asylum System
Debate between Meg Hillier and Clive Efford
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister says he has a plan, but this is the third plan set out during the last two years: the Illegal Migration Act 2023 has not worked, we were told the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would stop the boats, and now we have the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. We are told that the Bill has been watered down because the Rwandans themselves want to comply with the international law and conventions that the Tories wanted to breach. How is Rwanda dictating our immigration policy consistent with the Government’s claim to be taking back control of our borders?
Housing (London)
Debate between Meg Hillier and Clive Efford(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cost of Living
Debate between Meg Hillier and Clive Efford
Clive Efford
I say that we need to build more houses. I said that when we were in government, I am saying it now and I will continue to say it consistently.
There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech on sport. We have just had the greatest year for sport that this country has ever known, but the Government have not come up with a coherent strategy across the whole of Government that will deliver sport in our communities and use the armies of volunteers up and down the country who are working hard in sport. We need a coherent strategy that will allow them to plan ahead for the long term and deliver the elusive sporting legacy, but there was nothing of that in the Queen’s Speech.
All that we have had is the Government parties falling into warring factions over different parts of their own Queen’s Speech. It started with the Deputy Prime Minister saying within 24 hours of the Queen’s Speech that he was not happy about the changes to child care ratios in nurseries. We have heard from several people who have been advising the Government on the matter, such as Professor Cathy Nutbrown, whom they commissioned to conduct an independent review of child care qualifications, and Dr Eva Lloyd and Professor Helen Penn, two more experts whom they commissioned. Professor Cathy Nutbrown said:
“Watering down ratios will threaten quality. Childcare may be cheaper, but children will be footing the bill.”,
and Dr Eva Lloyd and Professor Helen Penn said:
“Deregulation in the UK would lead to a reduction in quality.”
Clive Efford
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I do not have time to give way.
These things were known before the Queen’s Speech was written, so it is incredible that the Deputy Prime Minister then discovered that he did not support the measure included in it. He said:
“When we as a government consulted on changing the number of little toddlers that each adult can look after, the response from experts, from parents, from nurseries was overwhelmingly negative…They felt that the risks outweighed the benefits and it wouldn’t necessarily reduce costs. So that’s what I still have reservations about, about this change.”
That is the Deputy Prime Minister within 48 hours of the Queen’s Speech to which he put his name.
We are told that there is no reference to a referendum on Europe in the Queen’s Speech because the bullying Liberal Democrats stopped the Conservative party including it. That may be so, but what about the little toddlers to whom the Deputy Prime Minister referred? If he has a veto on a referendum on Europe, why did he not veto the measure on little toddlers and staff ratios in our nurseries? It seems to me that more than one party on the Government Benches is obsessing about Europe, and that is the Liberal Democrats. They have clearly got their values wrong on this issue.
All Governments face rebellions—I have even rebelled myself in the past—but I have never heard members of the Cabinet say that not only will they abstain on something, they will abstain on their own Queen’s Speech right at the start of the parliamentary Session. Can that be right? Is that the way we expect our Governments to behave, by falling apart almost immediately? The Secretary of State for Defence has effectively issued a warning to his leader that unless a change in the deal with Europe is achieved, he will vote against us remaining in the European Union. The Secretary of State for Education has said that he intends to abstain if a motion is put before the House on the matter of regretting the absence of a referendum on membership of the European Union in the Queen’s Speech.
While that is going on—this, in my opinion, is where the public start to fall out of love with politicians—the Prime Minister is in the USA promoting on behalf of the UK a trade agreement that will be negotiated directly between the USA and Europe. He is enthusiastically supporting that agreement over there, while at the same time his party over here is falling asunder on whether to vote against its own Queen’s Speech because there is no reference to a referendum on membership of the European Union. No wonder the public are wondering what we as politicians are about.
The word “omnishambles” has often been mentioned in relation to this Government, and I think it will enter the vocabulary of the UK, just as “Fergie time” will. I say to the coalition that it is playing in Fergie time, and people out there are blowing their whistles and calling time on this Government.