PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Infected Blood Inquiry - 19 November 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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.

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?

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.

What assurances can be offered that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has sufficient staffing and resources at its disposal to meet expectations of the swift payments promised by the Government?

I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government will ensure that the authority has the support it needs. I expect it to be making the first payments to infected people by the end of the year, and to start making payments to affected people next year. Further regulations will be required for people who are affected, but that will not disturb the timetable that I have set out. I intend the second set of regulations to be in force by 31 March next year. More than £1 billion has already been paid out in interim compensation, and the Government have opened applications for interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of deceased people who were infected with contaminated blood or blood products and have not yet been recognised.

Last week a constituent came to my office whose mother had died 50 years ago, eight months after a blood transfusion she had received when giving birth to her fourth son. When the family went back to collect the medical records, they found that they had all been destroyed. When we talk about a cover-up, they rightly make that link. Is there anything the Government can say to reassure my constituent that her case will be heard?

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority will obviously take—and I know this because of the discussions I have had with Sir Robert Francis—a sympathetic view of the level of evidence that will be required. Sometimes the problem is that the issues complained of date from so long ago, but another chilling aspect of this scandal is, in some cases, the wilful destruction of documents. That is something that we have to take into account when it comes to securing justice for people. I have had the privilege of meeting several members of the community, and I am grateful to them for continuing to campaign on this issue. Let me also openly express my gratitude to Sir Robert Francis and David Foley of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for continuing to work with the community to drive that delivery of compensation forward.

Ending the defensive culture in the civil service and Government is a cultural change that should unite all of us throughout public life. That is why work is under way across Government to strengthen responsibilities relating to candour and transparency for public servants. In the King’s Speech that opened this Parliament, the Government set out their commitment to legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public authorities and public servants, and the Prime Minister confirmed at the party conference that such legislation would be delivered. He said:

“It’s a law for the sub-postmasters in the Horizon scandal. The victims of infected blood. Windrush. Grenfell Tower. And all the countless injustices over the years, suffered by working people at the hands of those who were supposed to serve them.”

He also said that the Hillsborough law would be introduced to Parliament before the anniversary of that event, on 15 April next year.

One of my constituents contacted me recently to talk about the death of her husband, who contracted hepatitis C as a result of infected blood. The impact on her and her family has been massive, even with the interim payment that she and they have received. Can the Minister confirm that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has been established and is undertaking the necessary work to deliver payments to victims of this injustice as soon as possible?

I can indeed confirm that. The authority is working in a way that will allow it to scale up as quickly as it possibly can. The need for speed in delivering compensation payments is paramount.

Memorialisation will be really important in how we remember the victims of this scandal. Sir Brian Langstaff makes a compelling case about the need to recognise what happened to people, and for it to be recognised by future generations. Officials have begun the necessary work to respond to Sir Brian’s recommendations on memorialisation, and we recognise that this is an incredibly sensitive issue that we need to get right.

Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations call for fundamental changes to the way that politics and Government operate, and for one of the largest compensation schemes in UK history. That is entirely in line with the scale of the injustice that he has uncovered. Given the scale of the recommendations, I am committed to updating formally on them within the 12-month timeframe set out by Sir Brian Langstaff, but I assure Members of this House, and, indeed, the infected blood community, that we will drive forward this vital work. We will deliver the changes that are needed, which will stand as a testament to the bravery and determination of people who have been so badly failed.

I pay tribute to all those who fought so hard to bring us to this moment. Their efforts are monumental, and we commit again today to ensuring that they have not been in vain. I commend the motion to the House.

Before I call the shadow Minister, I wish to make a short statement about the House’s sub judice resolution. I understand that several legal cases relating to contaminated blood products have not yet concluded. However, given the public interest in this issue, Mr Speaker has exercised his discretion to allow reference to specific proceedings where necessary, as they concern issues of national importance.

I call the shadow Minister.

The infected blood scandal is one of the most painful and shameful chapters in the history of the British state. For decades, hundreds of individuals with bleeding disorders and other conditions were infected with HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C due to the use of contaminated blood products such as factor VIII and factor IX, which were often imported from overseas. Not only were those infections preventable, but warnings from the medical community were ignored by successive Governments and the national health service.

The victims and their families have endured unimaginable suffering, including the loss of loved ones and social stigma, and, tragically, many have even been blamed for their own illnesses. The health service that was supposed to treat them, heal them and look after them, and the parts of the state that were supposed to protect them, betrayed them. The institutions of this country failed the victims and their families at such a scale that it is almost beyond comprehension.

I am pleased that this subject has been brought forward to be debated today, because a subject as important as this deserves to be thoroughly discussed in the House. As this is my first debate as shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, I want to put on the record that although there will be much that the right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on, this issue is not one of them. He can be sure of our support as he works to put right a historical wrong, which continues to have a devastating impact on families across the country. This issue is simply beyond party politics. I thank the Paymaster General for updating the House today, and for the tone and tenor that he has already struck in this place since the general election.

The infected blood inquiry, established in 2017 by the former Prime Minister Theresa May, was only started because of the tireless efforts of victims and their families, but it has shed a horrifying light on the true scale of the tragedy. I echo the Paymaster General’s thanks to Sir Brian and his team for the great service that they have given in conducting the inquiry. It stands as a testament to the power of the victims’ voices and to the need for transparency, justice and accountability at all levels.

Although I am here today on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I want to reiterate the words of the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who apologised on behalf of not only the previous Government, but Governments stretching back to the 1970s. I know that this sentiment is shared by the current Leader of the Opposition and the whole of our party. We are truly sorry that successive Governments and the NHS failed to listen to medical experts, victims and their families, and the inquiry reveals a decades-long moral failure at the heart of our national life. A great many of its victims and loved ones sadly died before they ever saw the truth being acknowledged. I am pleased that this Government and the previous Government have publicly recognised the scale of the damage and acknowledged the mistakes, and, most importantly, are now taking steps to try to make amends and provide support and compensation for the many victims.

We on this side of the House will continue to support the Government’s ambition to make the first payments before the end of this year. It is important that the Government are pushing ahead with the compensation scheme, which is of the size and scale that is rightfully deserved by the victims, including those who are sadly now deceased, and their families, and that it will take into account all the medical, financial and emotional suffering. As I have said, the Minister will have our full support on this side of the House. An apology is, as he has said, meaningless without not just redress but redress at speed.

In addition, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be working further with the Health Secretary to help implement stronger medical screening protocols, as well as safety measures to ensure that the UK’s blood supply continues to be safe and free from contamination. A scandal like this cannot be allowed to happen again, so the Government must continue to ensure that the global standards for blood safety are met and regularly updated. This includes improving regulations, where appropriate, around the sourcing of blood products, and constantly updating, where possible, the methods for virus detection.

It is also important that we further enhance training and education for our healthcare professionals regarding ethical practices, patient consent and the safe use of medical products. I know that a lot has changed in the national health service in the nearly 50 years since the start of the scandal, but a key aspect of this total failure was the lack of informed consent and the failure of healthcare professionals to adequately communicate the risks associated with treatment.

As the inquiry has shown, there were numerous cases of disrespectful attitudes towards infected patients, which is completely unacceptable. Patients were often blamed for their condition or treated as though they were a burden. As the inquiry has recommended, training must include the ethics procedures as well as patient-centred care. This scandal, sadly, is a painful case study on what happens when this is not the case. Medical staff in the NHS should always approach patients with dignity and empathy, as we know they almost all do on a daily basis. They should ensure that all risks and benefits are clearly communicated and that the rights of patients are upheld.

Adding to this point, and perhaps more broadly as a society, we must continue the great work of recent years on destigmatising those with conditions such as HIV and hepatitis—I note the exceptional work of the Terrence Higgins Trust on the former in particular. As has been said, the victims of the infected blood scandal were victims not only of the NHS and the many Governments’ failings, but of social stigma and discrimination. As the inquiry found, they faced vilification despite the fact that many had received contaminated blood products through the same NHS that was blaming them through no fault of their own. I encourage the Government to continue with public education campaigns to combat the stigma surrounding blood-borne viruses and HIV, as well as implementing better protections in the workplace and public life, so that we can be sure that those infected are not subject to the pain of further discrimination.

I would like to put on record my own thanks to the brave victims and their families. As I said at the start of my speech, we would not be here today if it was not for them and for their campaigning; their hard work; their faith to keep going when nothing seemed to be changing; and, when the message simply did not seem to be getting through, their relentless will to fight, knowing that a great injustice had been done; and their love for their friends and family members, many of whom are sadly no longer with us today, who are all impacted by this terrible situation. Their courage is truly awe-inspiring, and no amount of compensation will ever undo the great tragedy, so great is the pain and suffering they have been through.

I sincerely hope that they will have some peace one day; peace in the knowledge that their Government and their health service have listened, and that all their hard years of campaigning, and the abuse and vile vitriol that many have faced, were not for nothing. In the end, after far too long, they have indeed been heard, and because of all their combined efforts and sacrifices, we can now come together to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

They have moved the nation and this Parliament with their deeply personal stories, and we are all deeply sorry for everything they have been through and for everything and everyone they have lost. I thank them all for their extraordinary bravery.

In the past three years alone, I have spoken in this House at least 10 times about the delays that the victims of contaminated blood have faced in obtaining the justice and compensation they deserve. Progress has been painfully slow and, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, there is much anger, frustration and mistrust for us to deal with, as it has not gone away. It has not been diluted by the general election, and those seeking compensation are rightly angry and mistrustful.

In May 2024, the inquiry found that more than 3,000 people had sadly died as a result of this scandal. Roughly one victim dies every two days, many without receiving compensation. I would not like to calculate how many people have died since I first spoke about contaminated blood in the House. My right hon. Friend mentioned further legislation and, between now and then, more people will sadly pass on as a result of this scandal.

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has had only a few months to try to rectify the consequences of the previous Government’s slow response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s demands. Again, I urge my right hon. Friend to do everything in his power to ensure that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority hires the staff needed to address the challenges and to design the procedures required with the utmost urgency. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has got the message.

I have spoken in the House many times of my constituent Sean Cavens, who was one of the youngest people in the country to be infected with hepatitis C as a result of being given contaminated blood. He has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of fellow victims of the scandal. Many people have died waiting for justice.

At the current rate of settling claims, which is another huge issue, victims and others are concerned that many more people will die without seeing a ha’penny of compensation for themselves or their families. They question whether the Government are acting quickly enough, with only 270 claims expected to be dealt with by the end of the financial year and more than 4,500 claims in limbo. I share their concerns; I am not sure if that is good enough.

Sean is now 43 years of age. He was infected with hepatitis C and other viruses in 1983. He wonders where he fits in the selection process. He will not be alone in wondering whether he must simply hang on and hope to survive long enough to see justice done for him and his family.

While the scheme currently has no effect on payments made through the infected blood support schemes, that will cease to be the case in the new financial year. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will review that approach and extend the deadline, so that people who receive payments after 31 March 2025 do not see that deducted from compensation through the new scheme. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister consider that point?

Fundamentally, Sean and others are concerned that those currently on the infected blood support schemes are not automatically being offered the core route payment. They wonder why they cannot be offered a lump sum payment equivalent to payments up to the average life expectancy of 86. They are also concerned that the rates of compensation to be offered are rumoured—I emphasise the word “rumoured”—to be only 20% of current annual payments. I am sure that will be outlined by my right hon. Friend in his winding-up speech.

The uncertainty about the compensation scheme’s date of infection criteria is causing concern for victims. The burden of proof for those who were infected after screening for relevant viruses began is deemed by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to be “higher”, but without any clarification on what that actually means in practice. Will the Minister provide such clarification? Screening began for HIV in November 1985 and for hepatitis C in September 1991, but for hepatitis B it was as early as December 1972. As I mentioned, Sean was infected with hepatitis B in 1983. He needs to know how that will affect his final compensation. For instance, will the IBCA take into account that the screening test for hepatitis B in 1983 is estimated to have been only 43% effective? Will the IBCA recognise that victims were treated for hepatitis C with the retroviral drug Interferon, which has well known serious side effects on patients’ mental health? Will that be reflected in their compensation?

Will the Minister confirm that Sir Brian Langstaff’s recent guidance, contained in his letter dated 13 November 2024, regarding the siblings of victims who deserve compensation, will be accepted by the IBCA and reflected in any compensation scheme that it designs? Will, as Sir Brian has recommended, any family member whose relationship was “so close” to the victim that damage to their own mental or physical health caused by witnessing their sibling’s suffering was “reasonably” foreseeable receive full compensation, if they were so damaged? It has been reported that the IBCA will only compensate siblings of victims if they lived with the victim in the family unit for a full two years. Will the Minister ensure that that arbitrary restriction is not contained in any IBCA compensation scheme?

Will the Minister confirm that the family of any victim who dies before his or her application to the IBCA has been completed will receive full compensation? There are indications that the IBCA interpreted the inquiry’s final report as saying the contrary—that it intends to pay only those who live long enough to receive a final reward. That cannot, in any way, shape or form, be correct. It is not fair and it is not just.

Will the Minister ensure that those who, as children, were purposefully infected with contaminated blood in the name of medical research are awarded enhanced punitive levels of compensation, to reflect the country’s abhorrence at such horrific criminal behaviour, carried out by medical professionals who had sworn to dedicate themselves to healing the sick? That is one thing I just cannot understand. The whole tragic scandal is an absolute disgrace, but it is really abhorrent that this great country of ours experimented on little children. Those children, many of whom have not survived, deserve the compensation. How much they should be awarded is obviously to be determined, as has been stated, but bearing in mind the abhorrent nature of what we have done as a nation, I ask the Minister to ensure it is enough.

The infected and contaminated blood scandal is just one of far too many injustices in the UK in recent decades, in which powerful people have treated institutional reputations, career prospects and, in a number of cases, profits as being more important than working-class lives. Hillsborough, Orgreave, the postal service Horizon scandal and Grenfell all share this shameful characteristic: each one sent out a message that ordinary working-class lives do not matter. The Minister can take this opportunity to show that this Labour Government think that the lives of ordinary people matter by ensuring that the victims of contaminated blood products receive just and meaningful compensation without any further unconscionable delay.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I call Michael Payne to make his maiden speech.

It is the honour of my life to speak for the first time in this House as the Member of Parliament for my home town of Gedling. To be given the opportunity to represent your neighbours and the place you are proud to call home in the greatest democratic Chamber in the world is a tremendous privilege and responsibility. To the people of Gedling who sent me here to speak up for them, thank you. I am eternally grateful for your support and trust. In my time in this House, I shall work tirelessly to repay that trust, representing each and every one of you to the very best of my ability.

My immediate predecessor was Tom Randall. He and I had our differences, but the fact that two young boys who grew up in Arnold and attended Redhill comprehensive school went on to represent their home town in Parliament says so much about the power of education and the value of our democracy, both of which must be cherished and protected. In particular, I thank Tom for his work in standing up for Hongkongers in Gedling and across the United Kingdom. At the count on election night, I promised that I would continue that important work, and I am pleased to be able to restate that promise on the Floor of the House today.

In 1997, Gedling elected its first Labour MP, my friend Vernon Coaker, now Lord Coaker. For 22 years, Vernon served the people of Gedling with distinction. He was widely respected across this House, just as he is now in the other place. As a kid growing up in Gedling, I was inspired by Vernon visiting my school, so I would like to place on record my thanks to Vernon and his wife Jackie for their service to Gedling.

Since the general election, as I have listened to inspiring contributions from Members across the House, I have been constantly reminded that the privilege of being elected to this House brings with it a duty to speak up for those who feel voiceless, powerless and ignored—people like my auntie, Tara Payne, whose first husband, Thomas Muir, died on 1 August 2013 at just 55 years of age, a victim of the infected blood scandal. Thomas and tens of thousands of others lost their life because their country failed them. It is only because of the courage, perseverance and resilience of those affected and their families that this Government finally committed to compensating them for this horrifying injustice. The victims of the infected blood scandal learned through heartbreaking experience that the words of Martin Luther King are as true today as when he first spoke them:

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Thirty-six years ago, if you had told the young working-class boy growing up in a terraced house in Arnold, just outside of Nottingham, that he would one day be representing the place he owes everything to in the United Kingdom Parliament, he would never have believed it, and I still do not today. The values that our great country and this Parliament stand for, and the parliamentarians and trailblazers who have gone before us, mean that kids from backgrounds like mine can achieve their dreams and ambitions, irrespective of their birthright. During my time in this House, I promise to do all I can to ensure that children in Gedling and across our country have the best possible start in life and are given the support and education to realise their dreams and their full potential, because if we are not here in this House to leave a better society for future generations, what are we here for at all?

I am only able to stand here and speak from these Benches today for three reasons: a loving family, an excellent education and a wonderful community. Let me begin with the community that I am proud to call home. Gedling is a constituency that may not be known by its name, but it certainly should be known by its nature: a beautiful collection of towns and villages to the north-east of the city of Nottingham and bordering the banks of the River Trent. It is surrounded by the historical footprint of the ancient Sherwood forest and the rural beauty of Nottinghamshire county.

My home town of Arnold is a market town with a proud history of hosiery. It was the centre of the framework knitting industry in the 19th century, and the site of the first frame-breaking incident of the luddite riots in March 1811—not that I agree with the rioters’ view on technology in the workplace, but their cause, increased pay and conditions and improved living standards, is just as important today as it was then. That is why I am proud to serve as part of a Government who are introducing the biggest advance in workers’ rights for a generation.

The town of Carlton was once home to a thriving textile industry, and is famous for its brickworks, as well as being home to the late, great actor Richard Beckinsale. It is now primarily residential, as is the smaller railway town of Netherfield, the beautiful village of Colwick and the bustling high-street community of Mapperley and Porchester. Gedling is also home to several picturesque villages that form part of rural Nottinghamshire: Burton Joyce, Stoke Bardolph, Lambley, Woodborough and the former mining village of Bestwood, where the original 1876 Victorian winding engine house still stands in its full glory, thanks to the work of the winding engine house volunteer group and Friends of Bestwood Country Park.

At the heart of the constituency is the historical village from which the constituency took its name: Gedling. It is home to All Hallows church, whose beautiful spire was an inspiration to one of the architects of this Palace, Augustus Pugin. All Hallows stands proudly in the landscape of its surroundings and at the foot of the former Gedling colliery. Gedling colliery was one of the most important collieries in Nottinghamshire, and was known as the pit of nations in honour of its diverse workforce, including from the Windrush generation. It was there that my grandad served as a coal miner. I still remember the tear in his eye when, on the 25th anniversary of the colliery’s closure, I accompanied him and his fellow former coal miners on a visit to Gedling country park, which now stands in the place of the colliery, and which I was proud to play a part in creating as deputy leader of Gedling borough council. The miners of our past powered this country’s future. We owe them an eternal debt of gratitude. That is why I am so proud be part of a Government who are finally ending the miners’ pension injustice.

My family have lived in Gedling for generations. They mean everything to me. I grew up in a home where hard work, respect, playing by the rules and honesty meant everything. Those are values that matter to most families, and they are the values that will guide me during my time in this place. Growing up as the son of a mechanic, watching my dad work hard at three jobs just to keep a roof over my head and pay the bills, I learned the meaning of hard work and the true meaning of family. Growing up watching my grandad and nana spend many years raising much-needed funds for Derrymount school—a school for children with special educational needs and disabilities—I learned the meaning of compassion and never looking down on anyone. Growing up as the son of a mum who went without so that I could be the first in my family to go to university, I learned the meaning of true love and selflessness.

My politics and beliefs are important to me, but, like millions of other people across this country, nothing is more important to me than my family. It is for that reason that making this maiden speech has not been easy. There are two people I desperately wish were watching from the Public Gallery today: John Herbert Waplington and Joan Edna Waplington—my grandad and my nana. Their love and compassion, and the values that they and my parents taught me, are the reason I am who I am today. They are the reason I believe in helping others. My nana and grandad were so proud to see me elected to serve my home community on Gedling borough council in May 2011, and they would have been even prouder to see me elected to this place to serve our home community. It is true that love really is the greatest gift that one generation can leave to another, and I am forever blessed to have been loved by them both.

Gedling is full of people with compassion and a desire to serve others. I have had the privilege of meeting so many of them over the years. Helen Lloyd and the volunteers at Arnold food bank; Tina Simpson and the team at Netherfield St George’s Centre; Nathan Kenney and Mapperley All Stars; Joel Baldry and the team at the Ark in Gedling; the Friends of Gedling Country Park; Daybrook bowls club, which is celebrating its centenary this year; the wonderful musicians of Burton Joyce community brass, and many more extraordinary people and groups, make Gedling such a wonderful community. Gedling is also home to brilliant schools with inspirational teachers and staff. I spent many happy years at Richard Bonington primary school and Redhill comprehensive school. Like so many others across the country, I owe so much to my teachers for their encouragement, support and inspiration.

Being elected to serve my home town in this place was the second greatest moment of my life. The first was marrying my husband, Kyle Robinson-Payne, on 1 July 2022. I am delighted that he is in the Public Gallery today, just as he has been with me on every step of my journey to this place. We live in a world where far too many people continue to be persecuted for who they are and who they love. For as long as I am in this place, I will use this platform to speak up for them and their rights. As our much-missed and beautiful friend Jo Cox taught us, whatever our differences, we always have so much more in common than that which divides us.

May I first commend the hon. Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) for his maiden speech? I think we can all agree that it was very moving, and that he does great credit to his family and constituents. I apologise for not having been here for the first few minutes; I was running over from Portcullis House.

I had the privilege of being the Minister with responsibility for the infected blood compensation scheme. On 21 May, I brought the scheme to the Floor of the House, speaking from the Government Dispatch Box. In the six months prior, I had been determined—not knowing when the election would be called—to do everything I could to bring that compensation scheme to life after so much delay. That delay has been, as the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) rightly said, totally unacceptable for too long.

In my remarks to the House, I will pay tribute to the victims, explain some of my experiences as a Minister, and make some observations on what lessons and next steps may need to take place. First, I acknowledge the work of my successor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). He has done virtually everything that I would have done, had the electorate overall given us a different outcome. Though I will always be available to members of the public to ask questions in this House, as is my responsibility as an Opposition Back-Bench MP, I believe that he is doing everything he can to move the scheme forward as quickly as possible, and I will come on to the mechanics of that in a moment.

During the month of May, I participated in 18 meetings. I met representatives of 40 groups in London, Leeds, Birmingham, Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. Each meeting was a profoundly emotional and moving moment for me and the officials who accompanied me. I met people who had gone through unimaginable suffering and uncertainty for not just a matter of months, but, in some cases, a number of decades. Some had been infected through their marriage. Some had been born as haemophiliacs and had been treated in ways that had the consequences we have spoken about today. Some had transfusions when giving birth to their children. Some received blood transfusions from imports that proved to be defective. Some had hepatitis C or hepatitis B. Some had HIV. Many had a combination of different conditions. Some had been family members of those who had been infected. It was a humbling but tragic set of moments. In those conversations, I looked those individuals in the eye and said, “I am deeply sorry on behalf of the British state.” It was a great privilege to be asked to do that on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, but we must learn lessons collectively from the enduring failure to come to terms with what has happened over the course of so many Governments and so many decades.

Many of the individuals I met had campaigned relentlessly, and I pay tribute to them today. I will not draw on individual names, because there are just so many people, and it would be unfair to all those whom I met. It was right that we brought forward a second interim payment, and it was right that we recognised the affected communities as well as the infected communities. It was tragic to see that there were sometimes disputes and divisions among many of the communities, because so much time had passed and so much fear existed around who would be looked after first, and about whether there would therefore be constraints on the money available.

I will step back to last year. After the Remembrance weekend in 2023, I was asked to move from my long tenure in different roles in the Treasury to the Cabinet Office to become Paymaster General. The year before, I had had some exposure to the challenge of making provision for compensation, and my immediate predecessor, the former Member for Horsham, had done a lot to try to ascertain what had been done collectively in government. The truth is that there was a very wide envelope: it may have been between £2 billion and £20 billion, and it had moved around according to what analysis could be done. That was because the parameters were fundamentally going to be based on how much compensation we would pay the different groups who were infected and affected. My predecessor started that process, and I pay tribute to him for what he did.

I also pay tribute to the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), who said to me when I left the Treasury, “You have one duty in that job. That is a moral duty to resolve the compensation scheme.” I honestly believe that he was critical in ensuring that we got to where we did on 21 May. I pay tribute, too, to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who did so much. At every question session, she sat just behind where I stand now, challenging me on what I was or was not doing. As the Paymaster General knows too well, there are always constraints; his officials will say, “I wouldn’t say that at this point.” We are always trying to say more, but I was acutely aware of how frustrated all the communities were, and that unless what I said was crystal clear, it would set off another storm of speculation on social media.

On the advice of my officials, I appointed Sir Jonathan Montgomery, who in the early months of 2024 assembled a small group of technical experts to advise on how to translate the compensation study of Sir Robert Francis into a full compensation scheme. We asked how, across the five heads of loss—injury impact, social impact, autonomy, the care award and the financial loss award—we could put a number on the relative suffering across all the different conditions. How could we put a number on the loss of a normal life, the loss of the ability to work, the loss of a sense of respect from the community in which people lived, and the stigma that other Members have referred to?

It was suggested to me at the time that I had done it the wrong way round—that I should have engaged with the community. I took the view that we were not going to get this resolved if we had done it that way round, but I knew it was critically important for all the communities to be engaged with, and I always had that expectation and intention. That is why, when I announced the scheme to the House on 21 May, I established a series of engagements where Sir Robert Francis met representatives of the infected and affected communities to go through the scheme and establish where changes needed to be made. Those engagements happened in June. I pay tribute to my successor, the Paymaster General, who engaged with the output of that work and—as per the timetable that had been agreed—made virtually all of the changes that were requested.

Today, understandably, I hear speed being urged across the House—that this should happen quicker to get the payments made. I totally understand that, and to some extent, I agree with it. However, I want to reassure the House that David Foley, who is now setting up and, I think, heading up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority as an arm’s length body of Government, is a superbly experienced civil servant. Neither I nor the Minister could have written the cheques ourselves to set up the processes and systems for evaluating entitlement and getting money out as quickly as possible. For those infected individuals who are alive—around 4,000—speed is obviously an imperative. The reason I took the decision on the £210,000 second interim payment, alongside the £100,000 from October 2022, was that I received advice, and I pressed and challenged my officials to get to a number that was the maximum that everyone would receive.

However, it is of course wholly necessary not just to get a first tranche fully paid out, but to get everyone else paid out. I acknowledge that there are questions about how to verify the date of infection, but despite all the bad things that have happened, obviously we must reconcile speed and effective decision making with ensuring that we pay the people who are entitled to the payments.

In Sir Brian Langstaff’s seven-volume report, of which I went to see the publication on Monday 20 May, he made a number of recommendations, and the Minister has indicated the Government’s willingness to honour those—the national memorial, and biannual meetings with those who have suffered in order to get to grips with the duty of candour. I want us as a House to be clear and honest about what we are really asking for, because the report spanned decades and different generations of Ministers, civil servants and orthodoxies in the medical profession. We need to encourage curiosity among individuals who see things going wrong but are held back from being truly candid because there tends to be group-think which prevents a thorough interrogation of what should be done.

Distortions happen, recollections have varied and medical professionals would make different judgments now from those they would have made at different points in the past. We need to be wise about what the duty of candour will look like, but we need to grasp the core argument that Brian Langstaff makes: we have to change the culture across Government and public service and in politics. I hope the Minister does not move on, but if he does, I hope he moves up. If he stays in his position, however, he can have an impact over time. When Ministers move, they have a received wisdom from their officials of a previous iteration, and we sometimes need to encourage the infusion of new Ministers to ask challenging questions and allow progress to be made.

I have profound concerns about public inquiries. A lot has been said in recent months about the multiple public inquiries that have occurred—how we can make them more systematic and aligned; the secretariats and the processes they run can obviously be streamlined. They are presented as the only cathartic method for the British state to come to terms with something that has gone wrong, and they are often not constrained in any way. They are typically led by retired High Court judges, and I have nothing against them, but we sometimes need to broaden the expertise such as by having economists and other people involved in looking at these things.

I pay tribute to Brian Langstaff, because the inquiry was a massive undertaking, but seven years is an enormous amount of time. I am not an expert on this, but let us think about the read-across to the covid inquiry. Many people have expectations of what that will deliver, but in other countries such analyses have brought forward recommendations and changes much more quickly. We have to get the balance right—not to cover up anything, but because we end up putting things into the long grass for so long. We as a Parliament need to come to terms with that.

I have probably spoken for too long, but I hope I can be forgiven for doing so given the role I had. I want to pay tribute to the work that has been done by those responsible for bringing us to this point. I pay tribute to all the victims and campaigners who have been so determined despite numerous knock-backs from Governments over the years. My own Government absolutely have to take their full share of the blame. Interim arrangements were made and ad hoc compensation schemes were set up, but responsibility was not taken by the British state, and it is absolutely right that we have done so now.

I do not think that social media is very helpful in trying to come to terms with the trauma of all this, or in giving clarity to those who need it. I wish David Foley and the IBCA well. I think there will be a series of letters about how to interpret individual recommendations, but he is setting up an efficient mechanism which, once it starts delivering, will deliver more and more rapidly—I am convinced of that. For some it cannot come soon enough, but I hope that very soon we can draw the right enduring lessons from this national scandal, and I hope it will never happen again.

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.

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.

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.

The hon. Gentleman is right to labour the point. All that we are hearing from the representative groups—those who make sure that they represent all those in the infected or affected communities—is that they want consultation with Government. They just want to be listened to and properly consulted as all these regulations are designed going forward. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not understand the Minister’s sensitivity around all this. He has to be aware—I am pretty certain that he is—that there is this sensitivity when it comes to the community.

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to make my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General aware of the strength of feeling out there that needs to be addressed. We will not satisfy people about the process unless we address those concerns.

One thing driving that concern is that the current process is not what was described in Sir Brian’s report, and it is not what was expected at the time he published his reports. The victims and their representatives feel excluded. On top of that, they feel enfeebled because of the lack of resources for advice and advocacy. There is further to go, if the victims are to have complete faith in the process. There is frustration that the people they have been battling against have been put in charge of the reparations. Surely my right hon. Friend can see their concerns. The death rate is now one every three days, and the increase in the rate is largely due to the fact that those with hepatitis have been suffering with long-term chronic liver disease. The Red Book for the Budget sets out that compensation will be paid over five years. At that rate, another 600 people will die without getting justice. The Treasury must not become another reason for justice for victims being delayed. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that that will not be the case?

I am aware that Sir Brian Langstaff has written to my right hon. Friend about the rule on siblings of 18 years of age at the time the sibling passed away. Will he explain to the House—or write to me on this—exactly where that ruling came from? It does not seem to appear in any of the recommendations or in Sir Brian’s report.

I have spoken before about the £15,000 offered to former pupils of Treloar school, which they consider derisory. It is another example of what happens when victims are excluded from the process.

I also draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is an excoriating criticism of the Cabinet Office. It exposes what it describes as a lack of clear and understandable information in the explanatory memorandum and a lack of preparedness for delivering the compensation scheme. The Committee doubts that the Cabinet Office will be able to pay compensation by the end of the year. Is he confident that the Committee is wrong and that payments will be made by the end of the year?

Lastly, large amounts of money were made by pharmaceutical companies and others while victims were being exploited and, in some cases, even being experimented on. That did not come about because of mistakes; they were deliberate actions, which in many instances were criminal. The British taxpayer must not pay the full cost alone. Those who made money from this appalling scandal should be required to make a significant contribution. In spite of what my right hon. Friend may consider a negative speech, I welcome the progress that we have made, but there is much further to go to deliver the justice that Sir Brian Langstaff set out in his report.

It is always difficult to follow somebody who has said almost exactly what I had intended to say in my speech. What I will try to do for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is rephrase it in a way that will hopefully be helpful and useful to the House. I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), who raised a number of really important issues about which those on the Government Front Bench should listen carefully.

I noticed the Paymaster General’s reaction to the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst; he has got to relax a little. We are trying to help and to be the voice of the community, who are telling us these things. They want to be engaged and properly consulted with. They want to be part of the process. That is what they are telling the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and that is what we are hearing from all the representative groups right across the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Paymaster General should just take on board some of the things that we are trying to put forward about the feelings and opinions of a lot of the community and what they are saying to us directly as a consequence of what is happening.

I congratulate the Government on honouring their commitment to have a debate. It is a pity that we did not get the full day, but one thing I have noticed is that it is getting a bit quieter in the Chamber when we have these debates and statements. I hope that there will not be fatigue when it comes to discussing important issues relating to the infected blood scandal, as we as a House will need a detailed approach to the ongoing compensation schemes.

I really hope that we will not get to a stage where the Government see this as “job done” and another box to be ticked, thinking, “There we go: infected blood is dealt with and we can now move on.” It is incumbent on all of us who were involved in the campaign to ensure that we continue to press the Government, ensuring that we talk up on behalf of our constituents and those impacted and affected.

I really hope that we start to see some newer Labour Members, in particular, taking a bigger interest—we used to have really involved, detailed debates where people turned up and played their part—as I am sure that many of them represent people who are impacted and affected. It would be good to see a few of them turn up.

I think it is it is a good sign that there are fewer Members of Parliament in the Chamber, because it shows that there has been meaningful progress. I do not see tetchiness from the Minister; what I see is somebody who has listened carefully to the representations of the community and acted on them. I accept and acknowledge that there are outstanding matters, but actually, when infrastructure has been set up—in some cases for 20 years—to campaign, it can be quite difficult to adjust to delivery mode.

There is no one in the House more experienced than the right hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to what he did in government and how he brought this issue forward. He is right; we must be a bit careful, but all of us involved are just trying to take the debate forward. He is possibly right that there may be satisfaction that things have moved on and we are at a different stage in the campaign, but it is still important that we continue to ask questions of Government. That is what we are all trying to do in this debate.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will, so long as the hon. Member does not poke me in the back, as he did the other evening.

My constituent has mentioned an outstanding issue that must be addressed. Current proposals only include siblings who were under the age 18 and lived in the same household as an infected person for at least two years after the onset of the infection. The requirement for siblings to have lived in the same house should be removed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the loss and suffering of a sibling who did not live in the same household for two years is no less than that of a sibling who did?

I do, and I am happy that my speech has provided the hon. Gentleman with another opportunity to make one of his interventions, as he does in practically every debate that he attends. He makes a good point, which the House has now heard.

I want to reinforce the point about IBCA’s arm’s length process. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst is right that it is abundantly clear, in both the interim and the full report, that there is a general expectation that IBCA will be truly at arm’s length, divorced and separate from the Government. We cannot get into the head of Sir Brian Langstaff when he designed the scheme, but I think that he expected there to be a proper arm’s length body that would be responsible to Parliament, not Government. What we have is the other way around, and that will probably be okay, but for extra security, those of us who are interested would like to make sure that it is properly independent, according to Sir Brian Langstaff’s original intention.

As long as there is a sense that this is a Government-influenced body, there will be continuing suspicions—from a community that has been let down so badly for decades by decision makers and Government—that this is the same old approach that we have seen in the past. I ask the Minister to find a way to ensure that we get that proper judge-led, arm’s length body that is responsible to us as the representatives of the people of the United Kingdom, and not just exclusively to Government. I have no issue with all the tributes that people have made to David Foley and all the other people involved, because they have been fantastic, but we are already beginning to see Cabinet Office-based appointments coming through for IBCA. Again, we are not really seeing consultation with those at the sharp end of all this. We need some more of that.

Sir Brian Langstaff said that two expert panels—one representing the legal parts of the issues, and the other the health parts—would work almost simultaneously and in concert with each other, to feed back to the chair of the board. It would be good to see that starting to emerge. He also said—not as clearly, but it was intended—that an expert panel would comprise those representing the community, both the infected and the affected. They would have a similar role to feed into the chair of IBCA. I hope that some of that will happen.

There is widespread support for what this Government have done, and £11.8 billion is a significant sum that everyone is confident will go most of the way towards meeting the compensation expectations, but there are issues. Members have touched on some of them. I will rattle through them—I do not want to detain the House and I have raised them before—but I just want to make sure that we do touch on them.

The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst is absolutely right that the £15,000 for those caught up in unethical research is far too low. This is coming back to all of us again, so I really hope we are able to revisit that. Then there are those who were treated with interferon as a matter of course. They have not been properly and fully included in the compensation scheme, so again I hope the Government are able to look at that. There is concern that hepatitis C payment bandings do not match and reflect the suffering caused. That is what I have been hearing from constituents involved in the campaign, so I hope the Government will be able to look at that.

There is the issue about bereaved parents and children, who will receive very low compensation payments if they are not the beneficiary of the estate of bereaved family members. I think that could be addressed. No compensation has been paid to siblings for their loss and suffering if they were over 18. Compensation for lack of earnings should consider future career progression that was prevented from occurring, rather than simply existing careers that were cut short. Lastly on my list, which is not long but is substantial, is the fact that the need for a date of infection is causing a great deal of anxiety and confusion among the community.

I believe that most of those issues could be properly addressed with the full involvement of community representatives if they have full and open access to Government Ministers and are able to play their part in designing any future schemes. The community should be involved to provide valuable information and advice on the most pressing issues that need to be addressed.

One issue that I want to turn to in the bulk of my remarks is the part of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that has probably received the least attention thus far: the “why” of all this. Why did this happen? Why were we misled for such a long time? We have had useful discussions about compensation and it is great to see that progress, but unless we explore and examine the reasons why it happened, we will not learn all that much as we go forward. The duty of candour Bill, which I will come on to, is a useful, positive and helpful development, but unless we have a proper examination of what went so badly wrong, then I am not entirely sure we will learn the full lessons of what happened over the past couple of decades.

The inquiry uncovered shocking revelations about the Government’s handling of the issue, including failures to provide full information to those affected by contaminated blood and the delay in acknowledging the extent of the problem. Sir Brian’s inquiry found that both Ministers and civil servants adopted lines to take, or strategies to avoid providing full and candid responses to the crisis. That lack of openness contributed to the suffering of those impacted, leaving many victims and their families feeling unheard and ignored for decades. Those of us in the House in the noughties who were raising these concerns and issues on behalf of constituents who presented in our surgeries remember being dismissed by “nothing-to-see-here” letters from successive Health Ministers. I would not say we were fobbed off exactly, but we were certainly told that there was nothing we should really be concerned about. With all the serious issues that were raised, there was a real sense that none of it was being taken seriously.

Sir Brian Langstaff recommended that Ministers and senior civil servants should be legally required to provide candour and completeness in their responses to public concerns. That brings us to the duty of candour Bill promised by the Government. I think all of us involved in this campaign were delighted to see it featured in the King’s Speech. We look forward to the Government introducing it. Most of the Bill is predicated on the response to Hillsborough. Key lessons have been taken from the infected blood scandal, and from other scandals such as the Horizon Post Office scandal. All of us who have been involved in these campaigns will look forward to our opportunity to debate and design the Bill.

A statutory duty of candour for all public servants, including civil servants and Ministers, would hold public officials accountable for their actions and require them to be transparent in their dealings with the public. Such a law would compel civil servants and Ministers to act with integrity and fully disclose all relevant information, even when it might be uncomfortable or damaging to the Government’s reputation.

In the course of the Langstaff inquiry, Andy Burnham pointed out that during the tainted blood scandal and even earlier, in various materials, the Government had frequently employed the phrase

“no wrongful practices were employed”.

In our debates on this issue, I often refer to Andy Burnham’s evidence to the inquiry, because it was particularly compelling and very helpful. I probably received more letters from him when he was Health Secretary than I did from any other Health Secretary. He talked about the letters that he used to send to Members of Parliament, and expressed his concern about the inaccurate lines provided by departmental officials. He believed that those lines perpetuated false narratives that failed to address the needs of those whose lives had been so devastatingly affected. He emphasised that the Government’s response to the infected blood issue was driven primarily by a fear of financial exposure, and he believed that explained the comprehensive failure to address the concerns of the victims over five decades.

I have called for a further investigation or inquiry into why this was allowed to happen in a major Department of State, given that it clearly led to many of the difficulties that we are now addressing through various compensation schemes. Much of the debate has touched on the Langstaff inquiry, but a separate look at what went wrong would be useful and cathartic for the Government, and would help them to shape their duty of candour Bill. I am not here to criticise them, although it sometimes sounds as though I am; I think that they have made a good start with all this, and we are all grateful for the £11.8 billion for the compensation schemes.

I became involved with this issue when a couple of my constituents were caught up in it. I remember those early days when we did not know what was going on, and the letters from the Department of Health made the situation all the more confusing. Over the decades, I have come to know members of the community. Some have come down to the House of Commons, told their story, and asked us to question Ministers. I pay tribute to Haemophilia Scotland and the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, which have made excellent representations on their behalf. The fact that we are discussing the issue now and have been able to see a clear way forward is largely due to the case that they put, and the fact that they were able to confront Members of Parliament, the Government and Ministers, and we should give them due credit for what they have done to bring us here today.

I want to record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for their tireless efforts in seeking justice for the victims of the infected blood scandal. The issue has had an impact on countless families, and I welcome the Government’s ongoing work to address it with the seriousness that it deserves.

Today I want to share the story of Jean Anziani, the mother of one of my constituents. Jean was a nurse who came home with a cut on her hand after a patient struggled during a blood draw, causing the glass syringe to break. Within just over a week, her health had declined so rapidly that she was rushed to hospital, where her children, 17-year-old Kenneth and 15-year-old Christine, had to wear full protective gear just to visit her. By then, Jean was unable to recognise her children. Only 13 days after receiving that cut, she passed away at the age of just 39. Christine shared that story with me; it was truly heartbreaking, and brought a tear to my eye.

Jean had contracted hepatitis B. The current support schemes focus only on those diagnosed with hepatitis C or HIV, leaving victims like Jean without the acknowledgment or the compensation that they deserve. The schemes were originally designed to address the most commonly identified infections, but they have unintentionally excluded people infected with hepatitis B. As a result, Jean’s daughter Christine is unable to receive any compensation or recognition for her loss. I would be extremely grateful if the Paymaster General could look into this matter for me and have further discussions.

This truly has been one of our nation’s worst ever scandals and injustices. Thousands of patients contracted HIV or hepatitis viruses, or both, from contaminated blood, and this was not an accident or something that could not be avoided. Nor was it down to pure negligence or people not being sufficiently attentive, although there was plenty of that. The report is clear about the

“systematic, collective and individual failures”

in identifying and managing infection risk from blood products, and in the response of the health service and the Government.

This issue affects the constituents of very many MPs, but it has a particularly tragic depth of salience in my constituency. East Hampshire is home to Treloar’s, a non-maintained special school and college that delivers outstanding education, nurture and care to children with some of the most profound disabilities. However, it was also the place where there was a terrible concentration of victims of this scandal. Because 40 to 50 haemophiliac patients were there at any one time, it came to be seen as a unique opportunity to study the disease, and a haemophilia centre was established at the nearby hospital in 1972. Towards the end of the 1970s, the hospital still catered to the needs of the wider community, but the haemophilia centre was relocated to the school grounds. The inquiry report dedicates an entire chapter to the experiences of pupils at Treloar’s, and to how research objectives often outweighed the best interests of the children. The inquiry heard that of the 122 pupils with haemophilia who attended the school between 1970 and 1987, only around 30 remain alive.

I have spoken to a number of my infected or affected constituents over the years, including Adrian “Ade” Goodyear, a man who speaks with remarkable dignity and determination. I will quote briefly from his most recent message to me:

“The camaraderie and unity of we former pupils—well the handfuls of us that are left…We have stuck together to get to the truth due to the promises and pacts we made towards our lost when they were living, as well as for their families.”

We have been waiting a very long time for the truth about a string of failures, omissions and wrongdoing, starting with the failure to achieve domestic self-sufficiency, and the decision to allow the importation of higher-risk factor VIII concentrates, which in many cases were procured via commercial arrangements that made infection more likely because the products came from high-risk groups, including prisoners and drug users. We were complacent about the risks of hepatitis C and slow to respond to the risks of AIDS, and we permitted research to be conducted on people without telling them—or, in the case of children, their parents—or informing them of the risks. In some cases, we failed to tell people that they were infected, thus closing down the possibility of their managing the progression of their disease or its transmission to others. In other cases, people were told starkly and insensitively about a diagnosis of HIV. There was defensiveness, a lack of candour, the active destruction of evidence and, of course, the absence of a meaningful apology or redress for so many years.

In his statement on 21 May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) rightly accepted Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommended five categories of pay awards and confirmed additional interim compensation payments. There now needs to be clarity about the basis on which claims can be assessed, and the speed of those payments. Campaigners have raised concerns about the information sources available, and I hope that the Minister can provide assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that there is easily accessible information to support people making compensation claims.

I have been asked by former pupils at Treloar’s to ask about the compensation amounts of £10,000 and £15,000, which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). It would be helpful to have on the record, and in Hansard, an explanation of those sums of money.

We have talked about memorialisation and the national memorial. The inquiry also recommended that there be a memorial dedicated specifically to the children at Treloar’s, and that it be provided at public expense. I hope that the Minister can provide an update on that, either in his closing remarks or in follow-up correspondence.

I hope that one of the positives that can come from this generation will be the instituting and institutionalising of a duty of candour, in both letter and spirit. The report recommends a review of the existing statutory duty of candour, which requires NHS organisations to be open and transparent about mistakes and harm in care, and requires leaders in health service organisations to be personally accountable for responding to concerns about safety. I think we all welcome the Bill appearing in the King’s Speech. For this generation, we need to make the duty of candour an established principle across the whole of public service, which is something in which we are all involved, in our different ways, as parliamentarians and members of the Government.

Nothing can ever make up for all these failings, but we can at least ensure that the compensation scheme works as well as it can, and that we as a state face up to our failings and truly learn the lessons, so that we can have confidence when we say, “Never will this happen again.”

We must always remember that at the heart of any public scandal, there are people. So many of my hon. Friends this afternoon have told tragic stories, but also stories of courage and humility. Alongside other brave, courageous victims and their families, Becca, Jess and their siblings have campaigned for justice for people infected and affected, in loving memory of their father, Joe. Like me, they welcome the decisiveness and commitment from this Government. With families like them in mind, I would like to ask the Minister to outline when he expects the second set of regulations to be laid before Parliament, how victims and their families can continue to be involved and informed of progress, and how claims can be made.

I call the shadow Minister.

I should probably start by paying tribute to my predecessor in this role, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who has also been Paymaster General. He has done so much on this issue, and I will touch on his comments a bit later. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for opening for the Opposition today. I will just mention to the Paymaster General and other Ministers in the Department that they obviously continue to have our broad support.

We should never stop acknowledging the size and scale of this issue, which is almost unimaginable to Members from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire said that we needed to see justice, and that is what all the victims would like. I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate, and agree that what happened to the victims of the infected blood scandal was profoundly wrong and should never be repeated.

The establishment of the inquiry in 2017 was the right first step towards doing what we can to repair the damage, inasmuch as that can ever be possible. I am pleased that the work started by the previous Government to adopt the recommendations put forward by the inquiry is being continued by this Government. I must point out, though, how important it is for the Government to stay on schedule and start delivering payments through the Infected Blood Compensation Authority by the end of the year, as the Paymaster General outlined. We will ensure that that happens. It is incumbent on us all in this House to do our part to restore trust in our state, because that has been damaged, as well as thousands of lives. Ensuring that those payments go out, as was committed to, is an important part of that. More broadly, I will reflect on the challenges ahead.

Before I do that, I will touch on a couple of remarks made by Members in this debate. The hon. Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) made his maiden speech, and he spoke kindly of his predecessor, who is a good friend of mine. He probably does not remember, but I campaigned against him back in 2014 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was a young by-election candidate. Today, the hon. Gentleman spoke very strongly of his personal story. He clearly has the clarity and volume of a town crier so, even if we do not always agree with him, we will certainly hear him from this side of the Chamber. I welcome him to his place.

The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), who speaks for the APPG, and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) talked about different aspects of this subject, but they each mentioned the children who were used for research. I am sure that the Minister will want to reflect on that in his closing comments.

All three hon. Gentlemen touched on the patient’s voice. One recommendation is that the patient’s voice should be improved with the routine collection of patient satisfaction data, and with funding for patient advocacy groups and charities. Perhaps that is one way that patients and those affected could continue to be involved.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned the obvious impact of the cases in his constituency, as well as the need for a memorial to those affected. I hope the Minister will touch on that, too.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury touched on broader issues not just for the Cabinet Office but for Ministers in all Departments. It is important that we encourage curiosity rather than group-think. We all have a duty of candour and, thinking of those who work for us, it can sometimes be difficult in a political environment. The Minister should also reflect on my right hon. Friend’s point about public inquiries. It is obviously important to get to the truth, but the Cabinet Office might want to reflect on the speed at which we do that, as well as on who can achieve it and how.

We have heard about the need for stronger medical screening protocols and safety measures to ensure that such a scandal can never happen again. It is also important to acknowledge the need to continue interrogating our risk assessment and mitigation measures more broadly across our health services and the Government.

While I settle into my new role as shadow Paymaster General, I look forward to working with the Government to see what assistance I can offer, as well as fulfilling the Opposition’s job of holding them to account. I will do so in the same spirit shown by Labour Members on this issue. I will hold the Government to account to ensure that we do all we can, across all areas of Government, to implement the strongest possible risk assessment, mitigation and response procedures. It is important to have considered communication with affected groups, too.

The inquiry acknowledged that there was a failure within the NHS to properly implement informed consent and to ensure that patients, at all stages of the healthcare system, understood how their personal care related to the larger risks. While I appreciate the good work being done to make progress on this issue, we must not take our eye off the ball on any aspect of the Government’s work.

I am sure that there is still work to be done in the Department of Health and Social Care, in the Cabinet Office and across Government to ensure that informed consent and patient communication are working properly at all times, and to ensure that Government frameworks in our health and care system are being properly and continually evaluated so that the need for holistic informed consent does not fall victim to a complex and often disjointed system. That requires not only work on the health and care front, but on broader governance frameworks and improved cross-Government collaboration.

That speaks to the core issue raised today, with which I agree: the Government must continue to ensure that global standards for blood safety are met and regularly updated, as hon. Members have mentioned. I look forward to working in opposition, alongside hon. Friends in other shadow roles, and undertaking cross-party work to ensure that the regulations around the sourcing of blood products and virus detection are strengthened. As with the other measures mentioned, I want to ensure that that is done robustly and ahead of time, and not as a reactive measure, as has sadly been the case in the past.

One of the most difficult elements of such an inquiry process is to acknowledge that, too often, we make the changes that are needed to prevent a problem only when the consequences of that problem have reached intolerable levels. We need to resist boxing the issues raised today into direct consequences for our health and care practices, when a much more fundamental interrogation of our governance and practice framework is needed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury noted.

As numerous speakers have said, the inquiry shed clear light on the continuous failure on the part of institutions to properly address the issue as it came up. In far too many cases, infected patients were distrusted, disbelieved and, at points, treated with outright disrespect. Although it is important to acknowledge the significant changes that have happened across our health systems to tackle that, we should never become complacent. We must remain vigilant about the need for medical staff in the NHS to approach patients with trust, dignity and empathy. We must ensure that our communications frameworks and staff training properly reflect those issues.

The inquiry made it clear that the victims of the scandal were victims not only of institutions, but of widespread stigmatisation and prejudice. Whatever our party affiliation, we can all agree that we should continue to progress the good work that has happened since that time and to support the fantastic organisations that continue to take on that important activism.

I put on record my thanks to the brave victims of this scandal and their families. They have stepped forward bravely and steadfastly to fight for their dignity, against the wrongs committed upon them and for proper recognition. I thank the former right hon. Member for Maidenhead for introducing the inquiry back in 2017. I also thank the inquiry leaders for the essential work they conducted, without which we would have made much less progress at an even slower pace.

No amount of compensation will ever make up for the wrongs committed and the tragedies suffered. Of course, many who have been affected are no longer around to see the small benefits of compensation. I offer a small amount of hope to those affected: I am confident that hon. Members in this House, from all parties, have heard them and trust them. We know the suffering that has been brought upon them. They have fought valiantly and relentlessly, and I hope that they can take some comfort from knowing that their fight led to the recognition of the scale of the scandal and to the action that Governments of both colours have taken to ensure such a scandal never happens again. I hope history will show that further such suffering is avoided because the victims of this scandal exposed the wrongs of the past.

In closing, I once again express my deep regret for the continuous failure of Governments over the years on this issue. I express my support for the cause of those who continue to fight. I assure the infected and affected who are still fighting, and Members of this House, that I and my colleagues on the Conservative Benches will do all we can to continue our cross-party work, which we know still has to be done.

In the relatively non-political spirit of this debate, I ask the Minister, as he continues to work with Opposition Members to address the outstanding issues for the victims and their families, to be open about making adaptations and changes to address those issues, and to ensure that in the process of undertaking compensation, we do not end up alienating segments of those involved and ignoring the suffering of those who have been affected.

I thank hon. Members who have spoken today, the victims and their families, and all those who have played their part by doing what they can to ensure that something like this never happens again.

I stand here as the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, humbled and with a large degree of humility. The Department of Health and Social Care is rightly hated and despised by the infected blood community. We let them down. For that, I am personally sorry and my Department collectively is sorry.

I say that in a heartfelt way because for the past decade and a half, both as shadow Public Health Minister and as a Back Bencher, I have raised the issue of the infected blood scandal on behalf of the campaigns and of my constituents who were infected and affected. Now that I stand here as a Minister in the Department responsible, I feel it is incumbent on me to give that heartfelt apology. It is too late coming for so many, but I hope that those who are still here and their families and loved ones will accept it in the spirit in which I give it: I am sorry. We let you down and we must make sure it never ever happens again.

I welcome the two new Opposition spokespeople, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) and the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood). I want to start in the way the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay finished, by assuring him that the Government will work collectively and constructively with Members from across the House, from whichever party they come and whichever part of the United Kingdom they represent. This is an issue that has stained the body politic of our country for too long, and it is incumbent on us to work together across parties and across artificial divisions to make sure that we get the best deal for our constituents and their families.

I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), who made an incredibly powerful maiden speech, setting out how he will be a champion for the people of Gedling in the years to come. The people of Arnold, John and Joan, and his husband Kyle are all rightly proud of him today, from wherever they were viewing the speech. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), who has played such a pivotal role in this campaign over a large number of years, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon North (Will Stone) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin).

On the Opposition Benches, I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who led on this matter in his former ministerial position. We thank him for his work. I know that sometimes I was frustrated with him, from just behind where he is sitting, but I appreciate the work he put in behind the scenes as well as at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) has similarly been a tireless campaigner, as has the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

The infected blood scandal is one of the most appalling in our nation’s history. It was an institutional failure of the highest order, spanning decades. From the national health service to the civil service to Ministers across successive Governments, at every level, those the public trusted to protect them fell short in ways that were both tragic and catastrophic. They let down victims, their families and our country. In the course of this debate, we have heard the names: Sean, Gary, Thomas, Jean, Ade and Joe. They remind us of the real people—those who are deceased, those who were infected, and those who are affected. They are real people, not statistics, and it is important that we never forget that. Victims were denied the truth; many passed away before they saw justice. The state worked to protect itself, and those people paid the price.

I must echo the tributes that have been made to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team by Members from across the House. Their steadfast pursuit of the truth finally brought this decades-long scandal to light. Sir Brian and his team have set us on a path towards beginning to right the terrible wrongs that were committed. They uncovered a litany of collective and personal failures, as many hon. Members have highlighted by sharing stories from their communities and constituencies. Each one is significant in its own right and together they add up to a complete disaster.

Sir Brian found that this national scandal could have been prevented. It was already known that these treatments were contaminated, yet the warnings were disregarded time and again. People in positions of power and responsibility had multiple opportunities to halt the transmission of these infections, but, on each occasion, they chose not to act.

Many in this House have campaigned for justice for a long time, giving voice to those who had been repeatedly silenced. In particular, I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention and the Secretary of State for Wales. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I also thank the former Member for Worthing West, Peter Bottomley, and the now Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham. In this debate today, we have again heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and Chislehurst and for Blyth and Ashington, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, and the former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury.

As a Government, we will do our utmost not to repeat the mistakes of the past. We were elected on a manifesto that committed to act on the inquiry’s findings and to put right historical injustices. The public rightly expect nothing less of this Government than fulfilling our moral obligation to compensate victims, and we aim to do so without delay.

In October 2022, the previous Government spent £440 million on initial interim payments of £100,000 to the living infected. Following the publication of the inquiry’s final report in May, a further £728 million was paid as a second interim payment of £210,000 to all UK-registered living infected victims. The Government have also committed, in legislation, to paying £100,000 to the estates of the deceased infected to recognise those who have not yet received a payment and to ensure that some of those affected—such as parents, children and siblings—are supported. That scheme opened on 24 October. We recognise that money can never make up for the heartbreak that victims and their families have experienced, and much of the inquiry’s criticisms apply to the way that my Department—the Department of Health and Social Care—and its predecessors operated.

My constituent Brendan lost his left leg while serving with the British Army in 1979. Decades later, he discovered that he had been infected with hepatitis C during the operation that saved his life. I know having talked to Brendan that, while he is pleased that the Government have committed to providing compensation, he is keen for us all to understand that, because of his community’s lived experience, there is an inherent distrust of the state. His instinct on being told that the state will spit out a number is understandably not to trust the process. Will the Minister reassure Brendan that all compensation offers will include a detailed breakdown of the data and rates used to make the calculations?

I can give my hon. Friend and Brendan the commitment that we will do just that, to reassure those who rightly have lost all trust in public authorities, and particularly in my Department, because of the dreadful actions that led to their infection. She has my assurance that we will do what we can to reassure Brendan and many others like him who rightly have no trust left in us that we will rebuild that trust.

I am sorry not to have been here for the opening speeches. Does the Minister recognise the fundamental similarity between the way in which the victims of this scandal and those of the Post Office scandal, and no doubt other terrible scandals, were treated by the state? Does the Government have any plan, possibly on a cross-departmental basis, to try to educate the bureaucracy that when terribly difficult and potentially expensive things like this crop up, they should not follow this well-worn path of denial and cover-up?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Indeed, it was acknowledged by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office in his opening speech that this is just one of a number of scandals that follow a similar pattern—when the scandal has been uncovered, rather than trying to protect the victim, the state has tried to protect itself. It is absolutely crucial that the state learns not just from each individual scandal, but collectively; that it is the same mindset that has led us to all these different scandals with similar outcomes for victims. That level of learning has to be genuinely across Government, and I know my right hon. Friend will lead on that in the Cabinet Office.

The Government will set out our formal response before the end of the year, but given that there is absolutely no time to waste, I want to take this opportunity to update the House on the work already under way to address some of the inquiry’s recommendations. To prevent future harm, the Department continues to explore options to enhance candour and openness across the national health service. To empower patient voices, the NHS is reviewing clinical audits related to haemophilia services to identify any gaps in patient involvement, alongside work on a new clinical service specification, which will set standards for services across England. To protect haemophiliacs, the NHS has convened an expert group to hear advice from the specialised blood disorders clinical reference group. A dedicated taskforce has been set up to consider its recommendations. The General Medical Council is working with NHS England and others to look at ways to ensure that lessons learned are reflected in training for doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals.

Let me be clear to the House: the Government do not see this scandal in isolation. Sadly, repeated patient safety failings have eroded public confidence in our health and social care system, so we are taking steps to fix the culture of the national health service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been clear that we will not tolerate NHS managers who silence whistleblowers. Openness and honesty are vital to ensuring patient safety. NHS staff must have the confidence to speak out and come forward if they have concerns. There will be no more turning a blind eye to failure.

Our wider reforms to NHS performance will provide greater transparency for the public who pay for it. Measures will ensure that top talent is attracted to the most challenged areas, and persistently failing managers will be sacked. That is about ensuring that the right people are in post to lead our NHS with the resources they need to do their job. If we get that right, we will be able to look back on this moment as a turning point for patient safety and for leadership.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was in Committee at the start of the debate, but I did have my name down to speak. Some of my constituents were impacted by the scandal, and it has taken them this long to summon the courage to come forward. Obviously, I represent them and Northern Ireland. We have talked about the Hillsborough law and the need for a duty of candour. Does the Minister agree that it is important that that is rolled out not just in England and Wales, but right across the UK, so that, as he said, those families are never again impacted in that way?

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady that although health is devolved across the four nations, and I can speak only on behalf of the NHS in England on a number of the recommendations, both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Cabinet Office are working closely and collaboratively with Ministers in the devolved Administrations. Indeed, I and my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General recently had a meeting with Ministers from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to talk about how to take forward the recommendations, on a four-nation basis where possible, and with mutual support across the four nations where there are individual recommendations pertinent to the devolved parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that that reassures her that we are working together. Although I cannot comment on the changes that will be needed for health services in Northern Ireland, which are a matter for the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, I am quite certain that those services will carefully and closely consider our work here in England, and the work in other parts of the United Kingdom.

We have waited too long for these actions. People have waited too long for compensation. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Members have waited too long for this debate. More than 3,000 people died before they saw justice; families and our country were let down. There was a level of suffering that is so difficult to comprehend, because questions were not asked at the time, institutions did not face up to the failings, and facts were covered up. Now we know the truth. As we reflect, we are making a concerted effort to improve, because that loss need not be in vain.

I will respond to some of the questions raised throughout the debate, and will refer to other questions directly in the relevant part of my contribution. Should I miss anything because of time constraints, I will write to Members. In opening for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire talked about destigmatisation of HIV and hepatitis C. I hope that he understands that the Labour party made a clear manifesto commitment to ending HIV transmission in England by 2030. Officials at the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, NHS England and a broad range of system partners are now working together to develop a new HIV action plan, which we aim to publish by summer next year, and destigmatisation will be a key part of that plan.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington asked about psychological support for family and friends. I reassure him that NHS England has established the infected blood psychological support service in England, which supported its first patients in late August. That includes supporting not just the infected, but the families and friends affected.

I want to turn to departmental failings. The report outlines a comprehensive condemnation of the organisation of blood services, licensing decisions, blood safety and patient safety, with harm compounded by the reaction and handling of Government. I again recognise humbly the criticism of the Department that I stand at this Dispatch Box to represent and its predecessors, and I am committed to ensuring that a tragedy such as the infected blood scandal can never happen again. This Government will prioritise patient safety to ensure that the NHS treats people with the high-quality, safe care they deserve.

Repeated inquiries and investigations have highlighted significant issues with patient safety, which has caused a deterioration in public confidence, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) in an earlier intervention. We must absolutely fix that. The Health Secretary has been clear that we will not tolerate NHS managers who silence whistleblowers. A culture of openness and honesty is vital to ensure patient safety. We want NHS staff to have the confidence to speak out, and we will give them that.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) raised the question of the safety of blood products. While no medical treatment can be completely risk-free, current safety standards for blood donation and transfusion are rigorous, and England’s blood supply is one of the safest in the world. Processes are in place throughout the blood donation journey to ensure the safety of blood and blood products, including the donation safety check form, testing for specific infections, donor deferrals, regulations and informed consent. According to Serious Hazards of Transfusion, the risk of serious harm because of blood transfusion in the United Kingdom is low, at one in 11,000 blood components issued.

Turning to timelines, so far more than £1 billion has been paid in interim compensation payments to victims of the infected blood scandal. As we heard earlier, applications opened on 24 October for interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of deceased people whose deaths have not been recognised. Parliament has now approved regulations that give the Infected Blood Compensation Authority the powers necessary to pay compensation through the core route to the infected, both living and deceased. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has begun to process its first claimants under the infected blood compensation scheme.

In my intervention on the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), I asked about the siblings who qualify. One sibling seems to be worth more than another sibling, and that seems absolutely wrong. I understand that there has been no reply to that in the Minister’s summing up. Maybe he is coming on to it—if he is, I apologise—but I would love to have a response, because my constituents have asked me to ask that question and ensure that we have a response.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is carefully considering this matter. If the hon. Gentleman would like, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will write to him, but he is considering it.

We expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making payments to people who are infected under the infected blood compensation scheme by the end of this year. Payments to the affected are expected to begin in 2025, following a second set of regulations.

Turning to a question raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire about the independence of IBCA, it is rightly operationally independent. Parliament would clearly expect the Government to have oversight of a scheme of this size and for there to be proper management, given the amount of public money going into the scheme. It is true that there are only two non-departmental public bodies that are independent of the Government: one is IBCA and the other is the National Audit Office. It is absolutely right for IBCA to have that independence.[Official Report, 21 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 5WC.] (Correction)

On that point, the National Audit Office is directly accountable to Parliament through the Public Accounts Commission. Is the intention to create a similar sort of arrangement, as envisaged by Sir Brian Langstaff, in which there is direct accountability to Parliament, rather than to the Department?

I should clarify for my hon. Friend that IBCA is operationally independent—that is important —but it is absolutely right that Members of this House are able to scrutinise its operations, its working and, indeed, its use of public money. We are talking about a great deal of public money, and IBCA has to be democratically accountable to this House, albeit operationally independent of Government Ministers in its day-to-day business.

This is a really important point—both myself and the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) have now raised it with the Minister. He has rightly identified the experiences of so many people caught up in this crisis, and the fact that they do not trust the Government or Government institutions. Would it not be more of a comfort to them to know that IBCA is like the National Audit Office: accountable to Parliament, rather than to Government?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why IBCA is operationally independent—that is the crucial thing here. It does not have the fingerprints of Ministers all over it, because that is where the distrust comes from. It operates independently, but as a public body it is accountable to this House for how it spends that money and how it operates as an organisation. While IBCA is operationally independent to ensure a separation between Executive Ministers and the functioning of that body, it is accountable to this House. I think that is absolutely the right balance.

I endorse what the Minister has said about the way in which IBCA has been set up. It seems to me an entirely sensible arrangement that respects the need to have some distance from Government, but clearly there cannot be a bespoke arrangement for every single entity that is set up. This was the point I was trying to make, respectfully, about Sir Brian Langstaff earlier: he did a brilliant job, but some aspects of this issue will need a slightly different judgment made by Ministers. I welcome the decision that the Minister and his colleagues have made.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that Members across the House can see why we have set IBCA up in the way we have. It is for precisely that reason: we have to have that operational separation from Ministers and the Executive, but there also has to be political oversight from all quarters of this Chamber, because this is a public body spending public money—and a great deal of public money at that.

As I have said, we are aiming for the second set of regulations to be in place by 31 March 2025. That will support our intention that payments to the affected begin next year. There are important details, especially in relation to Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations, the majority of which the Government have accepted, that must be worked through ahead of the second set of regulations. This includes details such as the eligibility criteria for people who are affected, and how the Government should define the parameters of the definition of unethical testing.

Turning to payments, the selection of those who have been contacted for first payments was a decision for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. The first group of people who are receiving invites to claim are: first, those who are known to be already eligible for compensation; secondly, those registered with support schemes, which means we are likely to have much of the necessary information for these people already; thirdly, those from areas across the UK; and fourthly, those who represent a range of infection types and of severity within those infections.

Let me turn to some of the questions raised about this area. The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned people dying before compensation is awarded. I hope I can reassure her that when a person with an eligible infection has, tragically, died before receiving compensation, we will ensure that their personal representatives can claim compensation on behalf of the deceased’s estate. I hope that clarifies the point for her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North talked about the exclusion of victims with hepatitis B from the compensation scheme. People with chronic hepatitis B and those who die in the acute period are eligible for compensation, as are their loved ones as affected. I suggest that my hon. Friend writes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office with his constituent’s details, so that we can look more closely at his case. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst asked whether there will be payments by the end of the year. The answer is yes, and as I have said, there will be payments to the affected from next year, when we have the new regulations in place.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about the steps taken to provide accessible information on compensation. I want to spell out to him that Sir Robert recommended that there should be a higher award of £15,000 for children subject to unethical research at the school in his constituency. That is why there is a difference, which I hope clarifies that point for him. As I have said, at the start of November the Infected Blood Compensation Authority invited the first cohort of people to make compensation claims.

Candour in the civil service and in Government was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire in their contributions. The King’s Speech set out the commitment to bring forward legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public authorities and public servants. This legislation will be the catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector. The Prime Minister confirmed at the Labour party conference that legislation on the duty of candour would be delivered by this Government. He confirmed that the duty will apply to public authorities and public servants, and it will include criminal sanctions. The Bill will be introduced to Parliament before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster in April 2025.

In closing, today I hope the House has heard how we are starting to deliver compensation and how we are starting to respond to the inquiry recommendations. Admittedly, they are still small steps, but they are steps in the right direction. This work is far from over. We owe it to the victims and their families to see it through, and we will of course regularly update the House as this progresses. I reiterate on behalf of the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care, and as a mere ordinary Member of Parliament for Gorton and Denton, representing some of the infected and affected, that we are truly sorry. We let you down. We will learn from these lessons, and we must never ever let anything like this happen again.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Infected Blood Inquiry.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order out of sequence, and I will explain why I am doing so. It relates to the case of Mr Alaa Abd el-Fattah and a point of order that I raised over a week ago. Some Members may recall that he is a British citizen who was imprisoned for his human rights campaigning in Egypt. He has served his sentence of five years and should have been released in September, but was not. His mother, a well-known academic at Cairo University, has been on hunger strike for 50 days. Anyone who has had any experience of hunger strikes knows that this is a critical period.

A number of us wrote to the Foreign Secretary over 10 days ago about this case, urging him to make further representations to the Egyptian Administration to secure Mr el-Fattah’s release. As of close of play today, we have not received a response. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could I urge the Foreign Secretary to respond and, more importantly, take action? I am now fearful for the life of Laila, Mr el-Fattah’s mother, because as I said, the hunger strike has entered its 50th day.

The very serious matter raised by the right hon. Member is not one for the Chair, but he has placed his concerns on the record in the hearing of the Foreign Office.