Infected Blood Inquiry
Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Clive Efford(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Infected Blood Inquiry.
I am grateful for this opportunity to come before the House to update it on this vital issue and discuss the findings of the infected blood inquiry’s final report. We are now almost six months on from the publication of that report. I am pleased to have the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne) with me on the Government Front Bench today. He will lead on the elements of the inquiry report that are matters for the Department of Health and Social Care. We are as one in our determination to drive forward this vital work and deliver action on the findings of the infected blood inquiry’s report. That is the very least that the infected and affected victims of this appalling injustice deserve.
As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, I have made a number of statements to this House regarding the progress the Government have made on the compensation scheme. Today is an opportunity to go beyond that and cover the wider issues raised in Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. I am grateful to colleagues across the House for their engagement on this matter. I know that we are united as a House in seeking to deliver justice, in so far as it is possible, for this terrible scandal. We will not shy away from the appalling findings of the inquiry’s report and the horrors that have been inflicted on the infected blood community. I reiterate my thanks today to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for that comprehensive report. Crucially, I thank the community themselves. I recognise the anger and the mistrust that many, quite understandably, hold towards public institutions that have let so many people down so badly.
When the infected blood inquiry reported in May, the now Prime Minister and I were clear that an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action. It is action that we are taking. That is why I was so determined to move quickly to establish the infected blood compensation scheme and why I expect to see payments begin by the end of this year. The Prime Minister committed to delivering the Hillsborough law to help address the institutional defensiveness so powerfully exposed by Sir Brian’s report.
Today, I want to update the House on the work we are driving forward across the other key findings of the report to do everything possible to ensure that an injustice such as this is never allowed to happen again. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor provided, for the very first time, specific funding for the compensation fund: £11.8 billion in the Budget. That makes clear the scale of this Government’s commitment to justice, and I am proud that we are driving that work forward. Compensation delayed for generations will be delivered.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend rightly pays tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff. Everyone should be grateful to him for what he has done. In recommendation 14 of his second interim report, he was quite clear that the compensation body should be at arm’s length from Government and chaired by a completely independent judge with sole decision-making powers. Do the Government accept the core of that recommendation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has operational independence. The Government have stewardship over the amount of money allocated. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the £11.8 billion is a huge and substantial commitment. I do not pretend for a moment that any amount of money can actually provide recompense for the scale of the injustice, but at the same time it is an indication of the commitment—from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and across the Government—to deliver justice.
In saying that, I should say that I am grateful for the work and co-operation of hon. Members across the House. In particular, I once again thank my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for his efforts in government. As I indicated in the debate last week, I look forward to continuing to work in that spirit with the new shadow Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), on this hugely important issue. I also thank my ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), and the former Member for Worthing West. Their tireless campaigning and representation of the community’s interests over so many years has been invaluable.
Much progress has been made in responding to Sir Brian’s report, but much more remains to be done. I will set out the Government’s fuller response to the recommendations to the House in line with the timetable Sir Brian set out, but I hope in the course of this debate to assure right hon. and hon. Members, and most importantly those in the community, that we have listened, we have learned and we are taking long overdue action.
The inquiry’s report is persistent in uncovering the truth, unshakeable in its honesty and damning, frankly, in its criticisms. It is absolutely clear that fundamental responsibilities of patient safety in healthcare were repeatedly ignored, and that
“what happened would not have happened if safety of the patient had been paramount throughout.”
The culture of wilful ignorance runs through the report, and continued to proliferate as the scandal developed. It speaks to Governments across decades and a state more focused on discharging its functions, whatever the risk and whatever the cost. The report chronicles suffering of almost unimaginable scale: thousands of people died prematurely and continue to die every week; lives completely shattered; evidence destroyed; victims undermined; families devastated; and children used as objects of research.
It is a truly horrifying injustice.
However, Sir Brian’s report goes much further. He lays bare the institutional defensiveness that existed within the Government, and indeed the civil service, which led to the truth being hidden for so long, compounding the pain and the injustice. Sir Brian highlights
“the consequences of civil servants and ministers adopting lines to take without sufficient reflection, when they were inaccurate, partial when they should have been qualified, had no proper evidential foundation…or made unrealistic claims that treatment had been the best it could be.”
These actions are the very antithesis of public service, and that is why I know there is such collective determination to learn the right lessons and to act on them.
There is so much that can be said about the volumes of evidence that Sir Brian has uncovered, and I know that during this debate many Members will raise vital issues, but let me be absolutely clear: the report details utterly unacceptable failings on a chilling scale, and this Government will do everything in their power to address them. Through acting on these lessons, we must ensure that all those who have suffered, and those who have campaigned, have not done so in vain.
Let me now turn to the 12 recommendations that the inquiry made in its report. First, I will touch briefly on the progress that has already been made. I know that Members on both sides of the House are keen to hear the details of what the Government intend to do in response. The recommendations are wide-ranging, and are being given full consideration. As I have said, I will provide an update to Parliament by the end of the year against each and every one of those recommendations.
I will begin with compensation. I have already updated the House on a number of occasions on the progress that is being made. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate on the regulations that we have made to establish the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and the core route for compensation for infected people, but I am also grateful, crucially, for the support there has been throughout the House to ensure that the delivery of compensation is not delayed in any way by Parliament.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) for his maiden speech. It is clearly special for him to represent the area in which he grew up. He has so much personal experience and memories, and he spoke passionately about his family. I am sure they are very proud of him today, and that he will be an excellent representative for Gedling. I remember his Labour predecessor well. We were both elected on the same day, and perhaps I can challenge my hon. Friend a little and say that he has big boots to fill as his predecessor was an excellent Member of Parliament.
It is worth reminding ourselves of how we got to this stage. In spite of everything we have heard about the excellent progress being made in response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, there is still an enormous amount of frustration out there among victims and their families. In the 1970s and 1980s, as many as 6,000 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were treated with factor concentrates contaminated with HIV and hepatitis viruses. Almost all of them were infected with hepatitis C, and around 1,250 people, including 380 children, were also infected with HIV. Some of those unintentionally infected their partners or other family members. More than three quarters of those infected with HIV have since died, as have around one third of those infected with hepatitis C. Of those still alive, many are in poor health due to liver damage, or from living with long-term HIV. Additionally, around 26,800 people were given blood transfusions that were infected with hepatitis C. All that was avoidable.
By the 1970s, blood and blood products were already known to transfer viruses. It was known that the use of pooled blood products significantly increased the risk of infections. Those risks were ignored by leading clinicians, Ministers and civil servants, and they failed to take appropriate action to end the use of those products and ensure the use of safer products. Pharmaceutical companies and leading clinicians did not share appropriate information about risks with patients and patient groups. They failed in their duty of candour. It is no wonder that the victims of those crimes mistrust the state—the state that should be there for them, to protect them and be on their side.
We are here because, despite many dying along the way, and with one victim dying every four days, the surviving victims refused to give up. They refused to be defeated. They won their battle, and over and above that they won the right to be included in the decisions, as Sir Brian Langstaff made clear in his report. All along, the victims have been lied to, refused access to information, their records have mysteriously gone missing, and more recently they have found themselves repeatedly let down by the Government, it has to be said, in the form of the Cabinet Office.
The Cabinet Office controls the decisions of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. I hear what the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office said to me earlier about operational independence, but ultimately the Cabinet Office is making the decisions and victims are not included in the way that Sir Brian recommended. Victims feel that decisions are being made without their involvement. Those suffering with hepatitis C feel particularly excluded and do not feel that their suffering has been fully recognised in the compensation scheme.
In his interim report, Sir Brian Langstaff said that there should be an arm’s length body. I will not read the whole recommendation, but he said:
“I recommend that an Arms Length Body…should be set up to administer the compensation scheme, with guaranteed independence of judgement, chaired by a judge of High Court or Court of Session status as sole decision maker”.
The report goes on to state that the body should
“involve potentially eligible persons and their representatives amongst those in a small advisory panel, and in the review and improvement of the scheme; and…permit the hearing of applicants in person.”
None of that is part of the compensation process, yet it is clearly there in the report, and it was Sir Brian Langstaff’s intention that the victims should be involved much more.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In terms of listening to the victims, there was an extensive consultation exercise during the general election campaign. My predecessor set that up, and it continued under the aegis of civil servants in that period. Afterwards, 74 recommendations were made, having listened to the community about changing the scheme. The Government accepted the implementation of 69 of those 74 recommendations. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that shows listening to the concerns about the scheme’s original formation. In respect of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, I strongly recommend that he, as chair of the APPG, meets Sir Robert Francis and David Foley. He can speak to them about precisely the involvement of the infected blood community, which is hugely important.
Clive Efford
I am fully aware of the consultation that took place, but what Sir Brian Langstaff describes is the ongoing involvement of the victims in the process, by their being part of an advisory panel and continuing to advise the compensation board.
I know that David Foley was at the conference at the weekend for the organisation that represents people with hepatitis. That organisation was pleased with the discussions it had with him, but none the less and in spite of that, people who were at that conference have since made clear to me that they feel frustrated and that, ultimately, the Cabinet Office is in control of the decision-making process. My right hon. Friend may take issue with that, but he should take note of the fact that that belief is out there, and we need to deal with it.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Clive Efford(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and I have indicated, Sir Robert Francis engaged extensively around the country during the general election. The point the hon. Lady makes about continuously trying to make what is a complex scheme open and transparent is entirely fair and I share the desire to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) has constantly been a powerful voice for victims of the infected blood scandal. I have indicated in previous remarks that we will engage with the charities and groups on what more support we can give to them. On the 20 cases, that is about a test-and-learn approach to try to be able to ramp up the scheme and make it operate more quickly.
On the unethical research—an appalling and dreadful practice—the Government have accepted the amount of money that was suggested, but it should be emphasised always that these are not payments in isolation; they are just a part, and in the vast majority of cases will be a small proportion, of the amounts of money that will be paid out.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke powerfully, and I echo his words about the former right hon. Member for Horsham, with whom I had a number of conversations about this matter. I know that he was concerned and wanted to drive the matter forward. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford spoke powerfully about the two cases in his constituency and the need for closure, which is a hugely powerful emotion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke powerfully about Jane Fitzgerald. She also spoke about Ronan Fitzgerald, who I understand is in the Gallery today and who is continuing the extraordinary fight for justice in which he has been engaged for so long. My hon. Friend asked a series of questions. If she writes to me with each of them, I will ensure that she receives a response.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), who is back on the Liberal Democrat Benches, raised the issue of siblings, which I addressed a moment or two ago. He is entirely right to highlight the importance of communications and transparency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) steps into giant shoes as the chair-designate of the APPG, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) did an extraordinary job in taking this matter forward. He talked about different Government Departments. The Cabinet Office has led on this issue because of the history of the Department of Health in the 1970s and 1980s. That is why I and the previous Paymaster General took on this responsibility. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that we should continue to engage with the infected blood community; that is a discussion I frequently have with the chair of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, who I know shares my hon. Friend’s desire to do so.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me about legal support, and we have accepted that it should be provided. He talked about my powers in that regard, which have been exercised. That legal support will happen, and it is hugely important that it does. We want the tariff scheme to be as quick and accessible as possible, and we want people to have that level of support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) spoke powerfully of people’s scepticism about state institutions. The introduction of a duty of candour is hugely important with regard to not only this scandal, but others such as Horizon and Hillsborough. His point about document destruction was very well made, but one of the reasons for using a tariff-based scheme, rather than having thousands of individual court cases, is precisely that the documents that are available can be treated more sensitively and on the basis of the balance of probabilities.
The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) spoke extraordinarily movingly about her constituent Graham Knight, his wife Sue and the support that she provided.
It was a privilege to listen to a fantastic maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), who is the first female Member of Parliament for her constituency. She spoke with great Yorkshire pride and about her constituents understandably feeling let down in the past. She certainly did not let them down today with her maiden speech, which was positive about the way that politics can deliver real change. I am sure it is the start of a very fine parliamentary career. Her grandmother, Marjorie Simms, would have been extraordinarily proud of her today.
The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) spoke about her constituent Philip, who summed up one chilling aspect of this scandal when he said,
“our ignorance was engineered by those in power.”
It is worth reflecting on that sentence as we look at the changes that we will need to make, beyond ensuring that people receive compensation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) spoke powerfully about his constituent, Roberta, and the stigma that she suffered. He also spoke about the Murray family, and if he writes to me about their specific circumstances, I will ensure that he gets a response.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) spoke movingly about family members and carers, and I agree with her about their huge importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) spoke about the Blake family. I think that caseworkers will be hugely important in the work of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.
I note that, understandably, the first constituent the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned did not even want her name to be mentioned. That is an indication of the ongoing pervasive nature of this scandal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) spoke for all of us when she said it had taken far too long to reach justice. She is welcome to write to me about the point she raised. I think she was talking about legal fees that have already been incurred, but if she writes to me I will ensure that she gets a response.
Clive Efford
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answers. Notwithstanding his reassurances, widespread concerns are still being expressed by those who have been affected or infected as a result of this scandal, so will he agree to a meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, in his Department, to discuss the issues that they still want to raise?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would be only too delighted to engage with the all-party parliamentary group, and I am sure that if my hon. Friend sends an invitation in the usual way, we can find a mutually convenient date.
My hon. Friend has just referred to the all-party group, and the spirit in which this debate has been conducted is really important. It is crucial that that cross-party approach continues. We are dealing with people who have been failed by the state, and we must acknowledge that. The regulations we are debating ensure that we can finally deliver compensation to those who have fought so hard and waited so long for justice in the most harrowing of circumstances. They deserve nothing less, and I hope that colleagues across the House will join me in supporting the regulations. I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024 (SI, 2024, No. 872), dated 22 August 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 August, be approved.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Clive Efford(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your new position.
I am grateful to the Minister for keeping in contact and keeping me informed of progress on this matter. I have two constituents who are directly affected—one affected and one infected. My constituent’s husband, who died 30 years ago, was a former Treloar’s pupil, and she has recently received a payment, but there is no written explanation of what she has received. She does not know if it is for her, her son, her husband, or all three of them, and she does not know how it is going to be delivered, including whether it will be through her husband’s estate and if that will plunge her back into probate. Some affected people are still experiencing issues.
My other constituent is a former Treloar’s pupil, and he is upset about the £15,000 payment and does not think it is anywhere near enough. I think this shows that those people who have been campaigning for 40 years want to be more involved in the decisions being made about them. I hear what the Minister has said, but I certainly think that they want to hear how they are going to be engaged so that they can make their voices heard about the issues. While generally welcoming what has been proposed, they want to be able to influence things as they go forwards, and I would like to hear from him how he thinks that can be achieved.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. On the first point he makes about his constituent who has received a payment but without any clear explanation, one of the things the Government are committed to do is to try to make this whole process as clear as we possibly can. If he wants to write to me about that particular case, I can ensure that the explanation and, indeed, the correspondence is looked at appropriately.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, he is absolutely right that the voice of victims must continue to be heard. I think the consultation exercise that took place during the general election campaign was hugely important. It is important that the Government listened and made the substantial changes to the scheme we have made on that basis. It is hugely important, too, that the voice of victims continues to be heard as the infected blood compensation scheme continues its work, and I know that is a shared priority for Sir Robert Francis. On the £15,000, can I also say that we accepted that recommendation in full from Sir Robert Francis? It is a marker of the appalling unethical medical research, but as I said in my response to the shadow Paymaster General, the overall awards, which appear under five different heads of loss, will of course be substantially larger, and that is a very small part of them.
Infected Blood Inquiry
Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Clive Efford(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the characteristically collegiate way in which he approached his perfectly reasonable questions. I shall deal with them one by one.
I will certainly push for the debate to be scheduled as soon as possible. It is really important that across the House we are able to comprehensively consider not just the recommendations, but the level and scale of the criticisms that have been made. Yes, the Government will respond one by one to the 12 recommendations made by Sir Brian Langstaff. In relation to Sir Robert Francis, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for transparency. I certainly undertake to publish those findings and that report ahead of the regulation to operationalise the scheme being laid by 24 August.
In relation to the right hon. Member’s point about the 90 days, my understanding is that the payments were completed on 24 June, which is within that 90-day period, but there will be, as I announced in my statement, additional interim payments to the estates of infected people and that process will begin from October.
With regard to parliamentary scrutiny, I welcome the scrutiny that there rightly will be on this, whether it is by PACAC or, indeed, by the House more generally. I certainly undertake, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to ensure that all relevant information is provided to the prosecuting authorities as they see fit for any action that needs to be taken against specific individuals.
Finally, in respect of memorialisation, Sir Brian Langstaff set out that there should be memorials in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and also a specific memorial to those children who were sent to Treloar’s for protection, but who ended up in the hideous situation of being experimented on when they were at their most vulnerable. I look forward to taking forward the process, as the right hon. Gentleman committed to do, of ensuring that we do have appropriate memorialisation, which is crucial to recognising the scale of what happened.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
May I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your position?
I welcome the Minister’s statement this morning, but can he say a little more about how the compensation authority will arrive at its decisions? There is concern that advisers have undue influence on the Cabinet Office and that the voices of those who have been infected and affected are not being heard sufficiently in this process. There are concerns about the compensation process and whether that will be in addition to, or conflated with, support payments; the non-payment of exemplary or punitive damages; the lack of recognition of the impact of illegal experimentation or the knowing use of contaminated blood products; and the payments that will be made to estates where people have died. The people who really should be scrutinising this are those who have been infected and affected, so will the Minister commit to involving them in the compensation authority, so that they can have confidence in the decisions that are being made?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his questions. First, may I say that, of course, the voice of victims should be absolutely central to this. I thank Sir Robert Francis for the work that he did in the general election purdah period to ensure that that is the case. I will consider very carefully the recommendations that Sir Robert makes on the basis of that engagement and hearing the voice of the victims.
I want to deal with one other point that my hon. Friend raised, which was to do with the future of the infected blood support schemes. I understand that there has been concern about this. The current proposal is that no immediate changes will be made to the infected blood support schemes. Payments will continue to be made at the same level until 31 March next year, and they will not be deducted from any compensation awards.
From 1 April next year, people who receive the England infected blood support scheme payments will continue to receive them until such time that their case is assessed under the new scheme by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Once assessed under the scheme, the applicant will be able to choose how to receive their compensation, either as a lump-sum or periodic payment. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the reassurance he seeks.
I have absolute confidence in Sir Robert Francis to run the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in an entirely appropriate way. I was in the Chamber when his appointment as the interim chair was announced, and it was welcomed warmly, as I recall, from the Public Gallery by the infected blood community.
Sport and the 2012 Olympics Legacy
Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Clive Efford
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Let me make it clear at the outset that our reference in the motion is to sports participation. We bid for the Olympics because we understood all the wider aspects of the success of the Olympics.
We have had a wide-ranging debate with some very interesting speeches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on her maiden speech. She questioned whether there was a legacy from the Olympic games for Scotland. If she goes back and checks the figures, she will find that there was a considerable spin-off from the games. But the purpose of this debate is to find out how we can all benefit more widely from the legacy.
We also heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson). She spoke very fondly and passionately about her constituency. I am sure that she will be a fine champion of her local residents and constituents in the years to come.
There have been a number of well-informed speeches. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) spoke about the wider generational issues. I found nothing in her speech with which I disagreed. The Olympic games will continue to benefit people more widely on a whole range of issues that go beyond sport, which is why investing and bidding for these major sporting events is so essential for the country.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
While we are discussing participation, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to praise those who enable others to participate in sport—those who drive the buses, cut the grass, make the food and drink, and carry the bags week after week, as they have done in rugby clubs up and down my constituency for many, many generations? Do they not also perform a vital role?