Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Sarah Olney Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are glad to see the introduction of this legislation and the establishment of the infected blood compensation scheme. We are glad that it will move the victims of this atrocity, both those infected and affected, closer to long-overdue justice and compensation. Victims and their families have been waiting decades for answers and for recognition of the suffering that they have endured. Liberal Democrats welcome the findings of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, which vindicated so many of those people affected. We voted last December for the amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, requiring the Government to set up the compensation scheme, and we are glad that this motion establishes that.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
This is a deeply sad scandal. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need reassurance from the Minister that there is adequate capacity to process the applications at pace?
Sarah Olney
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It goes very much to the heart of the remarks that I shall make about ensuring that the compensation scheme established through this legislation is indeed adequate, not just in its resources but in its powers to fully address the magnitude of the justice and compensation that is owed to the families who have suffered.
Although we are grateful that the Government have brought this legislation before Parliament at such an early stage, we want to ensure that these proposals go far enough, and ensure that all those affected get the justice they deserve. The Liberal Democrats will work with the Government to ensure that the provision for fair and proper compensation is implemented as quickly and effectively as possible.
More than 3,000 deaths are attributable to infected blood and blood products, over 30,000 people were infected with hepatitis C or HIV after receiving infected blood transfusions, and many thousands more have been affected by the suffering that has been caused. This scandal is a chilling story of people being failed, not only by the medical professionals who treated them but by the NHS—which should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment—and by a series of Governments whose integrity and diligence should have precluded such an atrocity from ever taking place.
Over the decades when this was happening, children were subject to unsafe and deeply unethical clinical testing. Senior doctors in British hospitals administered experimental treatments while knowing the significant risk of contaminated products, and staff in haemophilia centres across the country used blood products even though it was widely known that these products were likely to be infected, as was so vividly highlighted by the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden).
The scope of the negligence goes far beyond the medical administration; the infected blood inquiry report reveals a culture of covering up. We must ensure that there is transparency in governance, especially given the disregard with which the last Conservative Government treated the public’s trust. The Liberal Democrats support the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials, as well as the introduction of increased legal protections for whistleblowers. We must do all we can to ensure that we have an honest political culture in which concerns are listened to and questions answered, so that nothing of this nature can ever happen again. We are glad that the report has made public the extent to which people were failed, and that there is support across the House for acknowledgement of the injustices that have been suffered, which this legislation begins to rectify.
However, while we are grateful for the Government’s action in response to Sir Brian’s inquiry, particularly the Minister’s extension of the scheme beyond the initial commitments from the previous Government, we are concerned that the legislation does not go far enough. Financial compensation cannot make up for the years of injustice and the unimaginable distress that so many thousands of people have gone through.
The compensation scheme is an important step in acknowledging their suffering, but I urge the Minister to see it as the first step in the process of compensating victims. We want to see legislation that compensates the children who, without consent, were tested on with contaminated blood but did not go on to develop a disease. We want to see recognition of the family members who saw loved ones suffer, and in some instances pass away, but who will receive no compensation because they were over the age of 18 at the time of infection. We want to see a clear and explicit explanation of the payment bandings that have been set out, and we want to see engagement with the affected community at all stages.
It is vital that the scheme acknowledges the trauma experienced beyond the physical suffering caused by the infected blood. Not only were so many lives cut short or destroyed by the hideous physical illnesses that contaminated blood caused, but unimaginable psychological distress has been caused by experimentation on unconsenting and often unaware patients. We urge the Government to ensure that this scheme encompasses all those who suffered owing to the infected blood scandal, and that any further legislation is developed with the close engagement of those who best understand that suffering.
Our principal concerns lie with the transparency of the calculation of compensation payments. It is crucial that the scheme does not establish a hierarchy of suffering, and I ask the Minister to outline the process by which these tariffs were decided. The compensation for people treated with infected blood products who “self-cleared” hepatitis C is very low, and does not account for the health impacts that they have experienced or the psychological damage that they have experienced. There is also a significant discrepancy between those infected with hepatitis C and those infected with HIV. Although we welcome the initiation of compensation payments, we believe that there must be greater transparency over how they have been calculated. We urge the Minister to engage with the affected communities, and to ensure that there is clear communication explaining how these decisions have been reached.
The complications caused by the decades of defensive cover-up have not only exacerbated the trauma experienced by victims, but affected the estates of those who have died. In the intervening decades, some estates have become contentious and the question of the rightful recipients of compensation has therefore become unclear. In some cases, the compensation could be entailed away from those on whom a person’s infection or death has had the greatest impact. It is vital for the IBCA to have the necessary resources and powers to support victims through the process, to ensure that appropriate compensation is received by all those affected.
The burden of the administrative concerns and queries from affected families is currently falling on overstretched charities. Has the Minister considered the creation of a dedicated unit to deal with inquiries, working alongside the IBCA? We must support the work of these vital organisations—the charities providing support—and engage with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected. The motion sets out the possibility of future legislation, and we hope that the Government will follow up this legislation with vital community engagement. We urge them to ensure, as the scheme progresses, that there are mechanisms in place to enable the concerns of charities, organisations and affected individuals to be heard.
We are also cautious about the structural limitations of the IBCA. Given the many years over which the scandal took place, the six-year timeframe of the authority as a legal entity does not seem appropriate. The equivalent scheme set up by the Irish Government in the 1990s is still active, and it is crucial that the IBCA exists for long enough to ensure that the full compensation scheme and associated processes can be carried out effectively.
The Liberal Democrats are glad to see the introduction of this legislation. We welcome the Government’s swift creation of a compensation body, the IBCA, to implement the report’s recommendations and begin payments to the victims of this scandal. It is essential that people begin to receive the compensation that is so long overdue, and it is vital that that is done in the most compassionate and effective way. While we hope that the Government will go further in ensuring that the affected community are fully engaged and consulted in this process, the infected blood compensation scheme will allow victims, both infected and affected, to move, at last, towards justice.
Let me finally take this opportunity to thank Emily, Eleni, Pipsy, Claudia, Harry and Orlando, who are A-level students in my constituency and have been gaining work experience in my office this week. It has been a pleasure to host them, and they have worked very hard in helping me to put my speech together.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He took exactly the same approach that I did to the expert group. I accepted, as I told the House, 69 of the 74 recommendations, including, crucially, the continuation of the support schemes. On the other five, there were reasons of simplicity or speed—of getting compensation to people more quickly. I hope the House will take the assurance that there is that imperative to act as quickly as possible.
Sarah Olney
I am exceptionally grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s explanation of how the different tariffs have been arrived at, which aids comprehension. However, will he also explain a little more about what the expert group did to engage with the affected communities so that they can better understand the tariff for themselves?
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.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Sarah Olney ExcerptsTuesday 15th October 2024
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have been calling for reform of the House of Lords with a democratic mandate for decades. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and one that we support. These measures are long overdue, and we are grateful that they have been introduced so early in this Parliament. Fundamentally, we Liberal Democrats do not believe that there is space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege. The last significant reform of our second Chamber was introduced years ago. Although we would ultimately like to see a fully democratically elected upper Chamber, this legislation is a very welcome step to modernise the upper House.
In maintaining the right of hereditary peers to sit in our legislature, we are one of only two nations in the world in which membership of a second Chamber is decided by virtue of hereditary privilege. The principle of inherited membership of the other place is deeply antiquated, and we welcome the Government’s move to remove that ludicrous practice. Reform of our upper Chamber has been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. In fact, our stance on reform of the second House outlives many of the historically significant peerages that the current hereditary peers establishment maintains. Forty-nine per cent of the current hereditary peerages were created in the 20th century, while only 29% of hereditary peerages predate the 19th century, and the most recent were created in 1964—post-dating the Life Peerages Act 1958—so this legislation does not wash away our history or destroy tradition. The statistics alone should dissuade any argument about upholding of heritage. This reform is simply a move towards a more democratic form of politics. We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics.
Sarah Olney
Regrettably, the right hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying. Liberal Democrat policy is to have an elected second Chamber. We welcome these measures as a step towards a democratically elected Chamber.
Sir Roger Gale
I have long advocated—with, I think, the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (Sir David Davis)—the abolition of the House of Commons, the abolition of the House of Lords, and instead four national Parliaments, each with a First Minister, and an upper House dealing solely with defence, foreign policy and macro-taxation, which was the original purpose of Parliament. Why is the hon. Lady prepared to go half hog rather than the whole hog?
Sarah Olney
I must say, I regret that the Conservatives did not win a mandate in July for the kind of wholesale reform that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. As I say, the Liberal Democrat policy has always been for an elected second Chamber. That is not what the Bill delivers, but we are looking for the Government to go further—far further than the Conservatives did in the previous 14 years. [Interruption.] I find it so extraordinary that Conservative Members are suddenly all converts to the cause of Lords reform when they have done nothing about it for a decade and a half—it is insane. I say to both right hon. Gentlemen who have intervened on me that Liberal Democrat policy is for an elected upper Chamber, but getting rid of the hereditary peers is a welcome first step, and that is why we will support the legislation.
We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics after the chaos of the last Conservative Government. By removing this unelected and undemocratic aspect of our Parliament, we will move closer to that goal.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Lady’s argument would hold far more water if the Liberal Democrats adopted the position of not nominating anybody for the upper House until it was wholly elected. However, every single council leader up and down the land who has led a Liberal Democrat-Conservative group—sometimes of only three people—has suddenly found themselves draped in ermine and voting in the upper House. Her principle and her party’s actions are very wide apart.
Sarah Olney
I want to be very clear: the Liberal Democrats support the idea of a second Chamber. Under the current system, it is an appointed and elected Chamber; we are here today to support the principle of an elected second Chamber, and we are supporting the first step in that direction. We support the principle of an upper Chamber, and are very glad that there is Liberal Democrat representation within it, but that does not mean that we do not support the idea of changing the way in which people are introduced to the upper House. That is the principle that we are here to support.
Honestly, I am finding it difficult to work out what the Conservative argument is here. Do they want to abolish the House of Lords, do they want it to be elected, or do they want to keep everything exactly as it is? We support the Bill because it is a welcome first step towards a broader range of reforms that we have supported since 1911—which, as I have said, pre-dates many of the hereditary peerages that Conservative Members seem so keen to maintain.
Not only is the concept of inherited privilege one of fundamental, antiquated inequality, it exacerbates the distinct gender imbalance of the second Chamber, with not a single woman among the current hereditary peers. Removing the right of those peers to sit in the other place would make that gender imbalance slightly less severe, moving from 70% of peers being men to 67%. Parliament should be a body that represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. This legislation, which would remove the last remaining hereditary peers’ membership of the other place, is a significant step towards a more representative Parliament.
If successful, the Bill would have a significant impact on the size of the House. In 2017, we supported the findings of the Burns report, which recommended measures to manage the exponentially increasing membership of our second Chamber. By removing the right of hereditary peers to sit in the other place, we would see a significant reduction in the size of the House, moving it back towards a more sensible size. Liberal Democrats are supporters of that change and the move towards a smaller upper Chamber.
While we are grateful to the Government for the introduction of this Bill and intend to support its progress through the House, we also recognise and acknowledge the commitment, wisdom and contributions brought by some hereditary Members of the upper Chamber. We thank them for their work, yet hope they can agree that we can no longer ignore the entrenched inequality that the continuation of hereditary membership of their House brings. The Liberal Democrats have a long-standing commitment to reforming our second Chamber with a proper democratic mandate. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, both in this Chamber and the other place, are working together to push for broader reform as soon as possible. We are glad that the Government’s manifesto committed to other reforms, including changes to the appointment process, addressing the national and regional composition of the second Chamber, the introduction of a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement, and we ask the Minister to set out a timeline for those reforms.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently spoken out against the current system of prime ministerial appointments, which engrains patronage, reinforces the elitism of British politics and contributes to so many people losing faith in our system. We would like the Government to reassure us that they will not be following in the footsteps of the former Conservative Government, who ignored the findings of the 2017 Burns report and presided over a House of Lords that has ballooned in size. There have been suggestions that the Government’s plans for reform of the other place include a requirement for any nomination for a peerage to be accompanied by an explanation of the candidate’s suitability. Will the Minister commit to that requirement, bringing the appointment of peers more in line with the process for other honours—such as knighthoods—with political parties providing an overview of the relevant skills, knowledge and experience of the candidate?
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Could the hon. Lady tell the House how many life peerages were given out by the California lobbyist Sir Nicholas Clegg?
Sarah Olney
No, I cannot. That happened in a previous Parliament and has no relevance to this current piece of legislation, which is about abolishing the hereditary peers.
Luke Taylor
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is surprising to hear the confusion from Conservative Members regarding our position on this Bill? We have figured out how to win under first past the post, costing so many of their colleagues their seats, but we come here with the ambition to change the voting system to a much more progressive, fair and proportionate one. In the same sense, the way to deliver a fully reformed House of Lords is to engage in the process and change it from within.
Sarah Olney
I thank my colleague for his intervention, which underlines that what the Liberal Democrats want is a fully reformed House of Lords—an elected second Chamber. We think that that will better serve the people of this country, restore some of the gravitas and dignity of the House of Lords, and make it a more effective second Chamber. Ultimately, that is what we should all be looking to achieve.
The Liberal Democrats continue to support the findings of the 2017 Burns report, which claims that the House should be cut to 600 peers and outlines ways to ensure that happens. While the removal of hereditary Members is an important step in that process, we will continue to push the Government to continue with further reform in the future. In particular, we look to them to uphold their manifesto commitment to introduce a retirement age, a measure that further aids the reduction and subsequent management of the size and membership number of the House of Lords. We also want the second Chamber to have proper democratic legitimacy.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I am curious as to whether the Liberal Democrats would be open to amendments that look to take the reforms proposed by the Government that step further. It is very important that we work together to make sure we get the best form of upper House.
Sarah Olney
We will certainly be participating fully in Committee, scrutinising the legislation to see whether suitable amendments can be tabled, but that will be a Liberal Democrat initiative. It is something we will certainly play our part in.
We want the second Chamber to have proper democratic legitimacy, ultimately moving towards the replacement of the House of Lords with an elected Chamber. We believe that moving to a fully democratic, elected Chamber is essential to strengthening the integrity of Parliament and the authority of our second Chamber.
Dr Ben Spencer
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. The Liberal Democrats clearly have a very formed view of the reforms that they want, so what number of Lords would be in the elected upper Chamber? [Interruption.]
Sarah Olney
I have to confess that I missed the hon. Gentleman’s question, because I was distracted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I will just reiterate that we want to see broader reform of the House of Lords, with a democratically elected second Chamber.
Sarah Olney
I am not giving way again. More broadly, we are supportive of wider electoral reform, and look to the Government to support our pledges to modernise our electoral system. We want to strengthen democratic rights and participation by scrapping the Conservative party’s voter ID scheme, expand political and democratic engagement by extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, and take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties. We call on the Government to enshrine the ministerial code in legislation, giving Parliament the powers to hold Ministers to account and protecting politics from corruption and sleaze, and we want this new Labour Government to be bold in transferring greater powers away from Westminster and Whitehall. We believe that local authorities know best what their communities and towns need, and we want this Government to acknowledge that by boosting their authority and powers.
I hope we can all agree on the inappropriateness of hereditary status as a qualification for membership of a modern parliamentary democracy—that being the son, grandson or great-grandson of a former courtier, colonial administrator or 20th-century businessman is neither reason nor justification for a seat in a democratic Parliament. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues therefore welcome the Bill and are grateful to the Government for taking swift action to make our political system fairer. Through this legislation, we hope to see the most significant modernisation of the upper Chamber in a quarter of a century, and while we will continue to push the Government to introduce bolder and broader parliamentary reforms, this legislation signals a serious move towards more representative, more democratic and fairer politics. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are proud to support this Bill as it moves through the House.
Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality
Sarah Olney Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I must say that I am startled to see Conservative MPs acting as though they were defenders of standards in public life. Under the last Government, Ministers were subject to less transparency than Back-Bench MPs. We will never know the interests of some of the Ministers who served under Liz Truss, because their ministerial interests were never published. However, I say to the new Government that if Ministers do not treat the need to restore standards with the urgency that it deserves, there will be no sympathy for them from the public, either. The independent adviser on ministerial interests has made it clear that the current system produces a list of interests, not a full register. Will the Minister guarantee that we will now see a full register published, just as there is for MPs, and set out the timescale? Will the Government rectify the fact that we went months under the previous Government without a list of interests being published by retrospectively publishing those interests? Will the Government enshrine the ministerial code in law, and include in that law timescales for regularly publishing a register of interests, so that we can have confidence that it will be published? Finally, will the Government make the role of the ethics adviser truly independent by empowering the adviser to begin their investigations and publish their own reports?
Ellie Reeves
The hon. Member makes a number of important points. In relation to value, yes, this is about a closer alignment of the two schemes. MPs need to declare value at the moment, but value does not need to be declared under the ministerial scheme. That is the loophole that we are looking to close, and we will do so as soon as possible.