PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Infected Blood Inquiry - 26 July 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to provide an update on the Government’s progress in responding to the infected blood inquiry’s report.

I start by reiterating that the inquiry’s final report laid bare harrowing aspects of the scandal that make it vital that we provide regular updates on this work. The infected blood scandal is an injustice on an unprecedented scale that spans decades. Thousands of people have died and, sadly, continue to die every week. Lives have been shattered and the voices of victims have been ignored for decades. People have watched their loved ones die and—this is one of the most chilling facts that the inquiry brought to light—children were used as objects of research. It is hard to conceive of the scale of the damage done and the incredible suffering of all those impacted.

On 20 May, the country bore witness to the devastating findings of the infected blood inquiry’s report. It was a national moment, a profound moment of shame for the British state, and a moment of long-overdue recognition for the victims and their loved ones. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, in his former role as Leader of the Opposition, acknowledged that

“suffering was caused by wrongdoing, delay and systemic failure”

by all parties

“across the board, compounded by institutional defensiveness.” —[Official Report, 20 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 667.]

The former Prime Minister issued an apology on behalf of the state for the devastating impact that the use of infected blood and infected blood products has had on countless lives. Today, on behalf of this Government, I reiterate that deep and heartfelt sorry. First, let me reassure the House that the Government are committed to acting on the findings of the infected blood inquiry report to ensure swift resolution. We are also committed to working cross-party, and will work with others to deliver the compensation scheme and get final payments to victims as soon as possible. It is vital that we shine a penetrating light on the lessons that must be learned, and that includes paying comprehensive compensation to those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal.

I would like to thank hon. Members who have played prominent roles in pushing the work to this point. The Minister of State, Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), has always been —and I know will continue to be—a powerful advocate for this cause. Her work in pushing forward the cause and representing the voice of those infected and affected was unquestionably pivotal to our reaching this point. I also thank my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). As I said yesterday in Cabinet Office questions, I am grateful for his work in the lead-up to the announcement of the compensation scheme, and for his collegiate approach. I hope that we can continue to work together on this important issue.

The scale of the horror that was uncovered by Sir Brian Langstaff’s report almost defies belief. One of the issues that the report brought to light is the importance of addressing the unacceptable culture of defensiveness in the public sector. We must make sure that people’s reputations and protecting institutions are never put above public service. This Government will bring forward legislation to place a duty of candour on public servants and authorities to make sure that this kind of behaviour cannot happen again. That legislation must be the catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector by improving transparency and accountability. It will address the culture of defensiveness and help ensure that the lack of candour uncovered in the infected blood scandal —and, indeed, in too many other instances, such as Hillsborough and Horizon—is not repeated.

We recognise that as well as delivering institutional change, we must provide financial redress to people whose life has been irreversibly and tragically changed as a result of the infected blood scandal. One of the most powerful conclusions in the inquiry’s report is that an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action, and it is now my responsibility to carry forward this action. I hope to lead that work not only with the support of this House, but with sensitivity and respect towards the people who have been so unfairly affected by this scandal. After all that has happened, listening to the voice of victims is crucial, and I will endeavour to work closely with the infected blood community as we progress this work.

I would also like to update the House on the progress being made in establishing the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 legally created the authority on 24 May, and since that point, the interim chief executive David Foley has been working closely with Sir Robert Francis KC, the interim chair, to set up the compensation service. It is, frankly, no small task. The Cabinet Office is supporting the organisation as it recruits and sets up a service that is easy to access and simple to use. The authority will provide regular updates to the infected blood community and all others interested in its work.

Let me turn to compensation. On 21 May, I welcomed the former Administration’s announcement on compensation. There is an urgent need to get money to people in the most timely way possible. On 24 June, further interim payments of £210,000 were made to beneficiaries of the infected blood support schemes living with infections, bringing the total paid in compensation to victims to more than £1 billion. However, we recognise that this is not enough, given that many others have also been waiting for far too long.

The Cabinet Office is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, the devolved Governments and the administrators of the existing infected blood support schemes to establish the process for making interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of deceased people who were infected with contaminated blood or blood products, and whose deaths have not yet been recognised. Work is progressing to ensure that these payments are made as soon as we are able to. I am pleased to confirm to the House today that applications for these payments will open in October, and we will set out further details in due course.

There is also the matter of the final compensation scheme. We are committed to delivering this work quickly. We are also committed to getting it right. The proposed compensation scheme was published on gov.uk on 21 May, and we are committed, as I indicated yesterday to the shadow Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury, to making regulations to establish the scheme by 24 August, as we are obliged to by the Victims and Prisoners Act. However, we also recognise the importance of building support and trust among those who will access the scheme. Sir Robert Francis undertook an engagement exercise in June at the former Government’s request, with the support of all parties. The exercise engaged those who have been most impacted by the scandal on the content of the compensation scheme. I have been engaging with Sir Robert to hear his advice following his meetings with members of the infected blood community. I am considering his advice carefully, with a view to publishing both his report and the Government’s position on it in advance of 24 August.

Finally, I reassure the House that there will be an opportunity to fully debate the content of the inquiry’s final report. I am conscious that given the timing of the recent election, there has not yet been time for right hon. and hon. Members to do so. It is essential, in my view, that Members of this House have enough time to digest and debate the devastating findings of the report. The Government are considering Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, and we will provide an update to Parliament by the end of the year on the progress that we are making on responding to the inquiry’s recommendations, as Sir Brian recommended in the report.

The infected blood scandal is one of the gravest injustices this country has seen. I want to end by paying tribute to the courage and determination of the victims of this scandal—those infected and those affected who fought so hard for justice. At every debate on this issue, we remember that they are at the centre of all this. It is for them that we must come together to restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice. They deserve nothing less. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your elevation. I thank the Paymaster General for his statement, and thank him very much for the customarily early sight of his statement this morning.

The findings of the infected blood inquiry remain a shameful moment for the British state. First of all, I reiterate our apologies to all those whose lives have been changed as a result of this appalling tragedy, which never should have happened. On 20 May 2024, the day of the inquiry’s final report, the then Prime Minister confirmed that the Government would pay comprehensive compensation to those who have been affected and infected, as quickly as possible.

Before the election was called, on 22 May, I took a number of steps to ensure that interim compensation of £210,000 would be paid as quickly as possible to those registered with existing infected blood support schemes, as well as those who registered with the support scheme before the final scheme became operational, and to the estates of those who passed away between then and payments being made. I am delighted that the Paymaster General this morning confirmed that over £1 billion has now been paid during the run-up to the general election.

The legislation passed on 24 May established the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to administer the compensation scheme, and appointed Sir Robert Francis as the interim chair. Sir Robert had previously led the infected blood compensation framework study, and I understand from engagement with senior officials right up till the day of the general election that he undertook a meaningful series of engagement meetings, as the right hon. Gentleman confirmed, with representatives of the infected and affected communities during the purdah period.

We also accepted the then Opposition’s call for regulations to set up the scheme to be made within three months of the legislation receiving Royal Assent. We asked for an update to be provided to the House within 25 sitting days of the inquiry’s final report being published. I believe that the statement this morning honours that. I welcome the fact that the new Government have continued to prioritise this issue, and to keep the House and, of course, the victims and their families updated on progress. However, there remain questions, and matters on which I think the infected and affected blood communities would, respectfully, expect me to challenge the Government.

Will the Paymaster General confirm that the debate that I promised after the Whitsun recess could be scheduled for September? That would give Members a reasonable amount of time over the recess to study this considerable report. Will he reiterate my commitment to respond to Sir Brian’s recommendations one by one, as quickly as possible, within a comprehensive response to the report?

I am grateful today that the Paymaster General is considering the advice from Sir Robert’s engagement with the infected blood community in June. I hope that he will not just consider it, but decide to publish it in advance of the 24 August deadline for making regulations. In my modest experience, any regulations laid would be open to misinterpretation unless the Government set out Sir Robert’s considered reflections on the engagement exercise that he supervised and his considered judgment on what changes, if any, to qualifying criteria and parameters may be required to ensure that the scheme has maximum credibility. I believe that the Paymaster General’s new ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), would also advise him that maximum early transparency will yield maximum understanding and acceptance of the path forward.

I am anxious that the guarded optimism I heard during my 18 meetings with representatives from 40 groups in May will be sustained, and that the good will generated on the path the delivery will not be squandered. I give my commitment this morning that I will seek to support the Paymaster General as he completes the delicate process of finalising regulations by building on the engagement exercises and the invaluable work of Sir Jonathan Montgomery and his expert team.

On wider matters, can the Paymaster General confirm that the £1 billion he referred to represents the completion of the 90-day interim compensation commitment, or indicate to the House what quantum is outstanding and confirm that that will be paid within the 90 days that I set out on 21 May? It is critical that Sir Brian’s forensic assessment of culpability across the medical, civil service and ministerial domains is properly addressed as part of the Government’s evolving thinking on legislation on the duty of candour. While recognising that this is ultimately a matter for this House, it would be good if the Paymaster General could define what role the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee could play in scrutinising the Government’s progress.

Following my statement on 21 May, the Paymaster General referred to potential criminal charges and asked me to ensure that all relevant evidence would be made available for consideration by the prosecuting authorities. Will he update the House now on whether he is in a position to be able to do so? I also ask him to reiterate my acknowledgement of the call for memorialisation and to say whether he will appropriately frame the commitment the Government will make to the recommendations by the end of 2024, as I committed to do.

Finally, I wish the Paymaster General every success in this delicate work. I believe that he is well supported by an excellent team of civil servants to complete this work, and he will have my full support as he operationalises the legislation that the previous Government passed on 24 May.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the characteristically collegiate way in which he approached his perfectly reasonable questions. I shall deal with them one by one.

I will certainly push for the debate to be scheduled as soon as possible. It is really important that across the House we are able to comprehensively consider not just the recommendations, but the level and scale of the criticisms that have been made. Yes, the Government will respond one by one to the 12 recommendations made by Sir Brian Langstaff. In relation to Sir Robert Francis, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for transparency. I certainly undertake to publish those findings and that report ahead of the regulation to operationalise the scheme being laid by 24 August.

In relation to the right hon. Member’s point about the 90 days, my understanding is that the payments were completed on 24 June, which is within that 90-day period, but there will be, as I announced in my statement, additional interim payments to the estates of infected people and that process will begin from October.

With regard to parliamentary scrutiny, I welcome the scrutiny that there rightly will be on this, whether it is by PACAC or, indeed, by the House more generally. I certainly undertake, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to ensure that all relevant information is provided to the prosecuting authorities as they see fit for any action that needs to be taken against specific individuals.

Finally, in respect of memorialisation, Sir Brian Langstaff set out that there should be memorials in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and also a specific memorial to those children who were sent to Treloar’s for protection, but who ended up in the hideous situation of being experimented on when they were at their most vulnerable. I look forward to taking forward the process, as the right hon. Gentleman committed to do, of ensuring that we do have appropriate memorialisation, which is crucial to recognising the scale of what happened.

May I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your position?

I welcome the Minister’s statement this morning, but can he say a little more about how the compensation authority will arrive at its decisions? There is concern that advisers have undue influence on the Cabinet Office and that the voices of those who have been infected and affected are not being heard sufficiently in this process. There are concerns about the compensation process and whether that will be in addition to, or conflated with, support payments; the non-payment of exemplary or punitive damages; the lack of recognition of the impact of illegal experimentation or the knowing use of contaminated blood products; and the payments that will be made to estates where people have died. The people who really should be scrutinising this are those who have been infected and affected, so will the Minister commit to involving them in the compensation authority, so that they can have confidence in the decisions that are being made?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his questions. First, may I say that, of course, the voice of victims should be absolutely central to this. I thank Sir Robert Francis for the work that he did in the general election purdah period to ensure that that is the case. I will consider very carefully the recommendations that Sir Robert makes on the basis of that engagement and hearing the voice of the victims.

I want to deal with one other point that my hon. Friend raised, which was to do with the future of the infected blood support schemes. I understand that there has been concern about this. The current proposal is that no immediate changes will be made to the infected blood support schemes. Payments will continue to be made at the same level until 31 March next year, and they will not be deducted from any compensation awards.

From 1 April next year, people who receive the England infected blood support scheme payments will continue to receive them until such time that their case is assessed under the new scheme by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Once assessed under the scheme, the applicant will be able to choose how to receive their compensation, either as a lump-sum or periodic payment. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the reassurance he seeks.

I have absolute confidence in Sir Robert Francis to run the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in an entirely appropriate way. I was in the Chamber when his appointment as the interim chair was announced, and it was welcomed warmly, as I recall, from the Public Gallery by the infected blood community.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair following your election, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Paymaster General for early sight of his statement, and I welcome the tone and the cross-party approach that have been taken on this serious issue.

Victims of the infected blood scandal and their families have been waiting for decades to see justice. As we know, tragically, thousands have died without ever receiving compensation. The report of the inquiry into the scandal chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff laid bare the suffering inflicted, the cover-ups and the systemic failures across the British state. Not only did the state fail to help the victims, but in many cases people were lied to, treated with contempt and outright dismissed.

Now we have the evidence, and we have heard and read the most personal and courageous testimonies from victims. One of my constituents in North East Fife was a participant in the inquiry, and I have met others in the constituency. It is imperative that every one of us works across the aisle to deliver this effective and just compensation scheme.

We welcome the work by Sir Robert Francis and David Foley in setting up the IBCA. It is clear that transparency is vital in establishing trust between the IBCA and the infected blood community, so I am pleased to hear that the IBCA met with the community over the election period, but I would be grateful for more detail from the Paymaster General about what the ongoing work with the community will look like.

Not only do we have a duty to support the victims and their families with a fair compensation settlement, but, in order to create a lasting solution, we must ensure that the state cannot let such scandals happen again. Therefore, I am glad that the Paymaster General agrees that we need to adopt a duty of candour for public officials to ensure that victims are never treated in this manner again. Given that we have so many inquiries ongoing, can he give more detail on when the legislation on candour that he referred to will be brought forward?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those questions, and I look forward to working with her on this issue on a cross-party basis throughout the next few months and, I suspect, for quite a bit longer. I really do echo her point about the need for cross-party working.

The hon. Lady made a very fair point about the need to establish trust between the victims and the compensation body; that will be vital. She also asked me to say a little more about the voice of victims being heard. It will be for the Government to consider Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations, which follow on from his extensive engagement with victims and victims’ groups during the purdah period. As I said to the shadow Paymaster General a moment or two ago, I agree with him entirely about the need for transparency in the publication of Sir Robert Francis’s work and report ahead of 24 August. I will be writing to the victims’ groups to ensure that their voice continues to be heard.

The duty of candour stands alongside other measures that we are bringing forward, including the public advocate and ensuring that families who find themselves in the tragic situation that many did with Hillsborough are able to be appropriately represented at inquests. We need to see those measures as a collective package, but we will be bringing them forward as soon as we can.

My constituents Justine and Rachel Gordon-Smith lost their father six years ago on Wednesday. He suffered from haemophilia and was given infected blood in the 1980s. I welcome today’s statement. The current compensation scheme makes provision for children of affected persons only while they are under the age of 18, which does not take into account the long-term impact faced by my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and my constituents to discuss this matter and ensure that the scheme supports all affected persons in Edinburgh North and Leith and across the country?

First, I think the whole House will have every sympathy with the situation that my hon. Friend’s constituents and their family find themselves in. In the scheme, there are of course those who were infected and those who were affected, who include partners, parents, children, siblings and, quite rightly, those who provided care to infected people, because there were often situations where the carers were not necessarily close relatives but none the less provided significant care. If my hon. Friend could please write to me, I can ensure that there is an appropriate ministerial meeting.

I too congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your recent elevation.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, which was very welcome. I echo his words by acknowledging that the infected blood inquiry is one of the greatest scandals of our age. I pay tribute to the victims and their families, who have fought tirelessly to bring matters to this point.

I am glad to hear that the Minister is committed to meeting the 24 August deadline for laying regulations to establish the final compensation scheme, but I am a little disappointed that he did not set out a full timescale for the full operation of the scheme. It would be helpful if he said a little more about that. Will he comment on his commitment to working closely with the Scottish Government on the scheme’s implementation in Scotland, to ensure that victims seeking redress face no further delay?

I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about the scale of the scandal and his appropriate tribute to the victims. On the timescale, as I indicated in my statement, the additional interim payments to the estates of the infected will start from October. As I indicated at questions yesterday in respect of the full scheme, I would expect the final compensation payments to start being paid from the end of this year.

It is my intention to meet the Health Ministers of the devolved Administrations in my native Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. I am committed to working with the devolved Administrations. As I indicated earlier, they will have a key role to play in the memorialisation process, too.

I congratulate you on your new position, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Front Benchers to their roles and thank them for the content and tone of the statement—my constituents will welcome that update. However, this is not an isolated incident in which the state has failed to protect its citizens. We have had the Horizon Post Office scandal, the Hillsborough families, and the child migration scheme—a matter in which I must declare an interest—for which former Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a national apology back in 2010. Will the Paymaster General assure me and my constituents that the Government are committed to bringing about the culture change that is so clearly needed, as those scandals show?

Yes, I can give that commitment. I should really emphasise its importance. As I indicated a moment or two ago, we are committed to the introduction of a duty of candour; we are committed to ensuring that families are supported at inquests and inquiries, particularly for situations such as Hillsborough; and we are committed to a public advocate. Those are all really important steps that we need to take. Ultimately, that has to be accompanied by leadership and a change of culture, to move away from what Sir Brian Langstaff described as “institutional defensiveness.” That is absolutely critical.

As your constituency neighbour, may I congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker?

I must put on record my sheer admiration for one of my constituents, Clive Smith, who chairs the Haemophilia Society. When I was first elected to this place in 2019, one of my very first constituency meetings was with Clive at his home, to talk specifically about the importance of pushing these matters through the House. I thank the previous and current Government for their collective work to get the House to this position of providing reassurance to those who have been impacted. I also thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) for her work as part of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood.

There are still concerns about how the payments will be made to the estates of those who have died. There is a risk that if such payments are made to the estates, they will be directed away from those who have been most impacted. My understanding is that it is currently expected that the executors of wills will decide how compensation payments are made to family members, and the payments may not go to those who have been most impacted. How will the Paymaster General ensure that the payments get to those who are most impacted?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I echo his tribute to his constituent Clive Smith for all his remarkable campaigning over many years. In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s second point on the probate process and ensuring that the money actually reaches those it is supposed to reach, the Government are considering how we can best support victims through the probate process. I hope to have further details on that in due course.

Huge congratulations to you on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) for her dogged work in getting everybody to this point.

I want to raise with the Minister the interesting report that has come out from the National Audit Office this week, which looks at compensation schemes across the piece and makes recommendations to the Cabinet Office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) said, there have been a number of compensation schemes, but they seem to be ad hoc, and lessons are not always learned about how to deliver them, so victims in the middle get squeezed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us that he will be considering that and coming out with recommendations in due course.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She is entirely right that we need to learn lessons from previous compensation schemes, where they have gone well, and, frankly, where they have gone not so well—where, after looking at and reflecting upon them, we see that the proportion of money that we wanted to go to victims did not quite make it. I certainly give the reassurance that we are looking at those previous schemes and trying to learn best practice from them.

Congratulations on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This statement is welcome in my constituency, where it is estimated that between 80 and 100 people were infected with HIV and approximately 26,800 were infected with hepatitis C after a blood transfusion. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the campaigners who have fought so hard to move this campaign and search for justice forward for those victims?

I certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that. As we speak today, we really should recognise that it took decades—a frankly unacceptable length of time—for people to achieve justice in this scandal. Not only did we have that profound moment when Sir Brian Langstaff announced the inquiry’s report, but it is so important that we now take the time that is necessary to learn the lessons for the future.

I thank my right hon. Friend for this update. He mentioned that one of the crucial points in this scandal is the fact that children were identified because of their genetic condition. Would my right hon. Friend explain how that issue will be looked at? How on earth can we compensate children who were identified at a very young age? Many of them have since died. They need substantial compensation and much more support than I think they are currently getting.

My hon. Friend refers to one of the most chilling aspects of this scandal. There is no varnishing this; the reality is that children with haemophilia went to an institution—Treloar’s school—for protection. The school was set up in such a way that it was meant to give reassurance to parents that their children’s condition would be appropriately cared for, but they were actually used for medical experimentation. It is absolutely shameful and appalling. Of course my hon. Friend is right about appropriate compensation, but it is also vital that, as we go through Sir Brian Langstaff’s 12 recommendations, we put in place procedures, standards and structures so that something like that can never happen again.

Last week in my constituency I met Mike and Diana Blake, who told me the harrowing story of their son Stuart. Stuart was infected by contaminated blood, and was then infected with HIV and hepatitis C—he was just six years old. Stuart lived and suffered, and passed away aged 27 in 2006. The torment of the Blake family has been compounded by the fact that they have not received the full compensation that I know everybody in this House believes they are due. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement from the Dispatch Box, setting out the intention to move forward with compensation for bereaved families such as the Blake family. I would be grateful if he could say a little more about that process.

I am sure the whole House sends its sympathies to the Blake family on the loss of their son Stuart in such appalling, tragic circumstances. As I indicated a moment or two ago, I do not think any of us can conceive of the grief of losing a child in those circumstances, but Stuart’s parents are clearly people who are affected—they are exactly the kind of people whom the scheme has in mind. Whether they are partners, parents, children, siblings or those who provided care, it is absolutely critical that the compensation body recognises their suffering.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I would like to talk about Linda, one of my constituents, who sadly lost her husband Bill Dumbelton because of the infected blood scandal. He contracted HIV and hepatitis C, and lost his job when he told his employer that he had HIV. He had no life insurance—he was unable to get life insurance at that time because of his HIV status—so Linda had to pick up the pieces and deal with all the financial problems when he died. Can the Paymaster General please update the House on how the scheme will be used to compensate those affected by the scandal, including spouses such as Linda? Are the Government still aiming to make those final compensation payments by the end of the year?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking to make and start those compensation payments by the end of the year. Again, I am sure the whole House offers its sympathies to Linda on the loss of her husband. My hon. Friend highlights another problem when she speaks about the fact that Linda’s late partner could not secure life insurance at that time. Another aspect of this scandal was that the people who were both infected and affected were, in decades past, unable to access the support that they should have been able to access.

I congratulate you on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. Can he update the House as to what measures are being put in place to learn the lessons of this scandal, including on the indefensible time it has taken to put it right and on improving mechanisms for whistleblowing?

My hon. Friend raises a really important question. First and foremost, we need to consider very carefully the 12 recommendations that Sir Brian Langstaff has made. The Government will respond to them as requested in the timeline that Sir Brian mentioned in the report. In addition, we need to introduce the duty of candour and the public advocate, to support families at inquests and inquiries, and above all—in relation to my hon. Friend’s point about whistleblowers—to lead a change that moves away from the culture of defensiveness and towards one of putting the public interest first.

I welcome you to your new place, Madam Deputy Speaker—congratulations. I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today, and for the swift actions of this Government in starting to resolve this situation. As we have heard, there have been far too many scandals over recent years, such as Hillsborough, Horizon, this infected blood scandal and the women against state pension inequality. Does the Minister agree that people have to fight far too hard and for far too long to get the recognition and justice they deserve, and that this simply has to change?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hillsborough, Horizon, a number of other past scandals and this one are all severe and awful injustices, but what makes them even worse and compounds them is then having to fight for decades and decades. That is simply unacceptable, and it is one of the things that this Government are determined to change.

Like many others in the House, I have constituents who have been deeply impacted by this scandal and will welcome the statement. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that we take action not only to deliver the compensation, but to tackle the culture of defensiveness, which we have seen in this scandal and in every other scandal that has emerged? If we do not tackle it now, it is never going to change.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Anyone who reads Sir Brian Langstaff’s report will see the emphasis he puts on culture and the chilling nature of what he talks about as institutional defensiveness. That is something we need to change. We will put forward legislative measures that we hope will make a significant difference, but it is also a question of attitudes and culture, and changing that will require leadership.

Can the Paymaster General clarify whether an office for the whistleblower would be an independent office? That would be helpful in progressing the sort of clarity and transparency that he has referred to.

Protection for whistleblowers is important; it is something the Government are considering and keep under constant review.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation. I thank my right hon. Friend for updating the House so quickly after the general election. This issue is one that families in my constituency, and across the country, care about deeply. Will he commit to ensuring that hon. Members are regularly updated as we move toward drawing a line under this dreadful scandal?

I do give that commitment, and I hope the House will see that the Government have moved swiftly to update Members. It is critical that the whole House gets to have a full debate on Sir Brian Langstaff’s report and its recommendations. I certainly commit to keeping the House regularly updated.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation to the Chair. I thank the Paymaster General for his statement and action so far. I was proud to stand on a Labour manifesto promising a duty of candour. After 14 years of broken promises, people in my constituency, as in so many others, have lost trust in politics and public institutions, and cynicism is a toxic consequence of these broken promises. I was so glad to see the duty of candour in the King’s Speech, but can the Minister update us on progress on this long-overdue measure?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He points to one of the deep issues across this debate, and indeed across other scandals such as Horizon and Hillsborough: there is a lack of trust in public institutions. This has happened because it took far too long—decades—for the truth to come to light. The Government are committed to bringing in the duty of candour. It was in the King’s Speech alongside the measure to create a public advocate and to support families in inquests. I look forward to that being brought forward as soon as possible.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation to the Chair. I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I pay tribute to the brave campaigners whose lives have been changed in the worst possible way by this scandal, including in my constituency. Many of the campaigners are children of people who have died as a result of their infections, and they have suffered immeasurably. I am pleased to see that there is support for this community across the House. Can the Minister confirm that the voices of the affected children will be included in his ongoing discussions and in the implementation of the recommendations in order to ensure fair and proper compensation and true accountability for this scandal?

We have to listen to the relatives, including the children, of those who have died as a result of this scandal. It is an awful fact that thousands of people have died. Now we must listen to their relatives, who are their voices for today in this process.

Like many Members, I have constituents who have been affected. Indeed, I grew up without a grandmother, due to infected blood. Not only did my constituents in Barnard Castle lose a child, but their other son experienced severe mental health challenges, which are lasting throughout his adult life, as a consequence of the strain that has been placed on the family because of their long struggle for justice. I am grateful for questions about the duty of candour, but will the Minister agree to regularly update the House on the other measures that will bring about culture change? Culture change is difficult, and it is difficult to know if and when it has been achieved. I would be interested to see a regular update on that.

I am sure the whole House extends its sympathies to my hon. Friend on the loss of his grandmother as a consequence of this scandal. He is entirely right to highlight the impact that it has had on others: the people we call the affected people as a consequence of this scandal. With regard to the culture of institutional defensiveness, the critical thing is that people do not put protecting individual reputations or the reputation of institutions above what is in the public interest or above the duty of public service. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is an easy thing to lead on, but it is certainly something that this Government are determined to lead on, and of course I undertake to update the House regularly on that.

I call John Slinger to ask the last question.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation to your position. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public note that all too often in such cases of egregious state failure, prosecutions do not follow? It appears to the public that there is, in some ways, impunity. Compensation is belatedly given; reforms are made; but all too often individuals are not held accountable. That is part of the problem that we are discussing this morning. Will he commit to giving further updates on the steps that may be taken to ensure that individuals are held properly accountable?

Whether individuals are prosecuted is rightly a matter that is independent of Government; that is for the Crown Prosecution Service. What I do undertake to do is ensure that all relevant information is made available to the prosecuting authorities, so that the decision can be an informed decision based on the evidence. I also undertake, as my hon. Friend asks, to keep the House updated on that.