24 November 2022: Debate in Parliament

At the special debate in Parliament, Dame Diana Johnson started by thanking the 30 MP supporters of the debate. The Government have always needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to advance any aspect of this issue. A number of years ago Glen Wilkinson, a constituent, came to see her and explained the situation, and this started her efforts on the matter of contaminated blood. She acknowledged the years of campaigning and the groups involved. There has not been enough contrition from Government, and a disaster has become a scandal. An intervention included a call for an apology. There do appear to be attempts to cover up what happened under successive governments. She mentioned the excellent leadership from the Inquiry. The Robert Francis report was meant to come out but was only published when it was leaked to the press. The response by the Government has now taken eight months to come out. People are still dying, including after the six years of the Inquiry. She asked the Government to commit to accepting the Recommendations (a “Pledge”). It needs to get everything ready for the compensation framework (“Prepare”), and fully involve people, as the Inquiry has. A series of questions were asked of the attending Minister. An intervention also sought for compensation for those who were caring too. She wants the payments to be for all, including parents, children, and carers (“Pay”). An intervention stressed the need for parents and carers to be able to access payments as soon as the Inquiry finishes. Thanks were expressed by another intervention for the efforts of campaigners in Wales, including Lynn Kelly. In summary, the requests are Pledge, Prepare, and Pay.

A speaker again stressed the need for all those infected and affected to be covered by the compensation framework. It must be ready to be up and running as soon as the Inquiry finishes – the systems, the preparations, recruitment, and training, etc.

Sir Peter Bottomley highlighted the Titmus book on the gift relationship arising from voluntary donation of blood. He also mentioned his own family being tested. Reference was made to the experiences of people seeing a new clinician and being asked about alcohol use, and that needed to stop. He admitted differences of opinion within his own family (his wife in particular, we wonder?)

Philippa Whitford paid tribute to infected and affected people, and all the campaigning. She recalled the shock of learning how she might have infected people as a surgeon. She changed her practice. However, there still needs to be some use of blood. She returned to the matter of the missing people not covered by payments so far. She wants the Government to publish its response to Francis and to have the systems up to speed. She reminded the debate how the Inquiry was down to the Government being concerned about losing a vote, not because it wanted to set up an Inquiry. Also, the Government should have allowed for a full debate in the Commons and so there should not have to been the need for such a debate as this one.

A speaker mentioned a constituent who had to fight for years to be recognised as a victim, mainly due to missing medical records. She is now cleared of the virus but is still chronically ill. She almost gave up seeking to be recognised. The limitations of the interim payments scheme were mentioned, and an intervention stressed again the exclusion of people such as family and carers.

A speaker again called for those not included in the compensation framework interim payments to be remembered. The moral argument is clear. His constituent lost two sons but has not received any support so far. An intervention again extended the call to include children and parents. The Francis Report included these other people, but the Government has not published its response which would give people a better sense of what to expect from the Government.

A speaker mentioned a constituent, John Prior, and explained the situations he faced, including still being alive when so many had died. He also only found out about his infectious status through his employer. The speaker re-stated the three Ps call (Pledge, Prepare, and Pay). The Government needs to act swiftly and with the minimal stress for victims.

Ian Lavery passionately spoke about the terrible situation people have faced, including the horror of John Major calling it “bad luck”. He spoke about the impacts on child development. He mentioned a constituent, Sean Cavens, who explained his situation and the campaign. The feelings of the people, alive and dead, have to be heard.

A speaker again mentioned the key role of campaign groups. She again requested the Minister to expand interim compensation, and to get on with setting up the systems. An intervention from Northern Ireland highlighted the non-parity of the different backdate for his constituents related to interim payments. The speaker mentioned a constituent, Colin, who died age seven. She mentioned the years of discrimination, stigma, indignities, losses the family and others all suffered. “Families were let down in the worst possible way”, she said. Colin’s parents are in their 70s and she wants them to be secure in what time they have left.

Chris Stephens (SNP Front Bench) spoke about the relentlessness of members who had been campaigning on this for years. It has only been the political, media, and campaigner pressure that forced the Government to hold an Inquiry. He also cited the Andy Burnham final speech and what it might mean. He quoted from constituents Cathy Young and her daughter Nicola about their life experiences. The two anti-viral treatments basically finished her dad off and he went into self-destruct mode. The resulting marital breakdown was made worse by them losing their home. They are stuck in the grief process. Dad was not their to walk his daughters down the isle or to meet his grandchildren. Again, the call was made to extend payments to family and carers, and to set up the Arm’s Length Body now so it is ready to respond to the needs of infected and affected people as soon as possible. He promised the Minister that, “The issue will be pursued until it is settled”.

An Opposition Front Bench speaker echoed previous contributions. Over 300 children died of AIDS, and others are still living with it. People are suffering mentally from living with the infections, the effects and the psychological impacts can be seen on those who have waited so long. There is a need to remember the children parents had to bury. The organisations were again mentioned as key to the campaign. She spoke of her own related family issues; her mother had Sickle-Cell and she was a carer. An intervention reminded the debate of the need for people to continue to give blood. The imported treatments were mentioned as the problem (but, not the UK infected products). She spoke again about the historical context, including the fact of it only needing one implicated donation to contaminate a whole batch. Justice delayed is justice denied. She again asked the Minister to address the clear questions posed from the debate. It was “disgraceful” that so far only one of the 19 Francis recommendations have been actioned.

Alex Burghart, the Minster, said it was a pleasure to speak in what was an important debate (so if it was important, why wasn’t it held in the Chamber, Alex?) He said the Government heard the calls loudly (and other trite phrases). He was only in post a few weeks, but the matter is high on the agenda, he said. “This is parliament at its best”, he said (but not in a full debate in the House, it seems, so perhaps it is also Government at its worst). He said he was confident that the Inquiry will deliver the answers and the recommendations victims have waited so long to hear. He referred to the Francis report and the Inquiry Interim Report. Then he reviewed the actions following these which led to the interim payments. They are the start of and not the end of the process of making payments he said. The Government recognises that it is “limited justice”. He fully expected that Sir Brian would make recommendations to cover parents, children, and others. He also reviewed the limitations to the Government acting (he was softening everyone up at this point). He said the work is ongoing within Government to respond to the Francis Report to set things up. Dame Diana Johnson intervened to seek clarification on the date for the Government to respond to the Francis Report. The Minister seemed to suggest the two reports would be responded to together. An further intervention sought clarification on this. There followed a series of intervention responses to push the question about publication of the response to the Francis Report. The suggestion was made that the House may have been misled since there were clear announcements saying it would respond to the Francis report specifically. The Minister stuck to its line that the final word would be with Sir Brian and it would be wrong to comment on issues that might be part of the Inquiry report. The Minister was pressed on at least committing to setting up the ALB as recommended by the Francis Report. He would not, however, even when reminded that some recommendations from Robert Francis were about immediate matters. Diana Johnson continued to press the matter, referring to it as “unacceptable”. He responded by saying he hoped the member would not see it as “deflection” (which it was so obviously was, the cad). It may be the start of a “longer dialogue”, he said (and that’s just what infected and affected people need, a longer dialogue). The Chair invited the Minister to say things in the public setting rather than expected private meetings, but he declined. “I hear what the Honourable Lady is saying, and we take this very seriously”, he said, completely disingenuously. (This unexpected bombshell from the Government of not responding at all to the Francis Report until the Inquiry Report was received is a total and utter shambles.) Ian Lavery used the “one person dying every four days” reference to suggest that maybe 50 more people would die before a response, or any further payments, are received. The Minister also would not say publicly that he would deal with the Northern Ireland issue but would write a response. And he will deal with the missing records matter after the Inquiry reports, too. He concluded by saying some heartless nonsense about how people had suffered.

Dame Diana Johnson wound up by saying she “was deeply, deeply concerned” by what the Minister had said. He sat there completely unmoved with a Mona Lisa style non-reactive visage. It is outrageous and “I will not be leaving it here” said Dame Diana. “This is not the right thing the way the Government is behaving”, she concluded.

From the silent pictures left on screen it was seen that the Minister left the room almost immediately whereas a sizeable group gathered around Diana Johnson who slowly moved towards the exist. The sound for the room was switched on again to start broadcasting a debate called by Damien Green about social care. The room was virtually empty. The irony was not lost.

Who could have predicted that the Government would stoop so low. They will now not publish their response to the Francis Report until they receive the Inquiry Report. How will Sir Brian gauge Government thinking if he does not receive the response? Will they at least send an embargoed response to him? Surely this matter alone justifies a Minister being called before a specially convened oral hearing session of the Inquiry on the basis of a Rule 9, or a more demanding Inquiries Act instrument, to answer questions. Let us remember, we live in a representative democracy, apparently, not a totalitarian state.

This has to be one of the most despicable moves by a Government. They are clearly far worse than a parcel of rogues. They are deceitful, conniving, untrustworthy, heartless, and wicked liars. Those specifically involved can only be motivated by evil; devils incarnate.