Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Official Report 943KB pdf

---

Victims and Prisoners Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-13017, in the name of Jenni Minto, on a legislative consent motion relating to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.

16:31  

This afternoon, we are debating a motion that the Parliament should agree that the relevant UK Government amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that were tabled on 17 April 2024 should be considered by the UK Parliament. The amendments provide for the setting up of an infected blood compensation body and make provision for further interim compensation payments to certain infected blood victims. The Scottish Parliament is having to consider the motion at very short notice because the UK Government was able to table its amendments in Westminster only at a very late stage.

What happened to infected blood victims is a terrible tragedy—one for which the Scottish Government has apologised, and I do so again today. I pay tribute to the families and support organisations in Scotland that I have had the privilege of meeting over the past year. The families have been resolute in their work to ensure that the plight of their loved ones is not ignored, and we should all learn from their dignity, focus and strength.

In its closing submissions to the infected blood inquiry, which was chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, the Scottish Government confirmed that it recognises the strong case for provision of compensation for all those who were infected with hepatitis and/or HIV, as well as for bereaved relatives, as a result of infected blood or blood products from the national health service. Given that context, I support the policy intent behind the UK Government’s amendments, which will enable the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations, as set out in its second interim report.

The inquiry has recommended that compensation should be provided by one UK-wide scheme to ensure consistency of approach, regardless of where in the UK an applicant lives or where they were infected. The inquiry also noted that a single scheme would allow for that scheme to be established more quickly, allow for efficient processing of applications and ensure that the scheme had appropriate and consistent legal and medical expertise.

The UK Government’s amendments provide for the setting up of a new arm’s-length body called the infected blood compensation authority, which will deliver the infected blood compensation scheme. The scheme will be funded by the UK Government, which is entirely appropriate, given that the victims were infected before devolution. The amendments contain provision for the arm’s-length body to be legally established on royal assent, which should facilitate progress.

Much of the detail of the compensation scheme, including eligibility and payment levels, will be set out in regulations, and I know that that has caused some concern among some victims. The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, John Glen MP, wrote to me on the day that the amendments were tabled. In my response, I have stressed the need for the details of the compensation scheme to be set out as quickly as possible. I have also emphasised that the Scottish Government should be fully involved and consulted on its plans.

The inquiry’s second interim report also recommended that further interim compensation payments of £100,000 should be made to certain relatives of infected people, following the previous £100,000 interim payments that were made to infected people or their bereaved partners. In response, the UK Government amendments make provision for payments to the estates of infected people who have sadly died, as a pragmatic method of ensuring that family members of the deceased get some compensation reasonably quickly. In my letter to the minister for the Cabinet Office, I underlined that those estate payments should be made as quickly as possible.

There is no doubt that the UK Government’s last-minute lodging of amendments has left the Scottish Government in a difficult position, with very little opportunity to negotiate changes. However, given that the amendments represent a concrete step towards providing compensation to the victims of this terrible tragedy and ensuring that relatives who have received nothing or little so far receive interim compensation, I recommend that the Scottish Parliament give its consent.

Much more will need to be done to get the compensation scheme up and running and to make the further interim compensation payments. As that work progresses, I will seek continued engagement with the UK Government to ensure that the needs of the victims are put at the centre and that the scheme works for all victims in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the relevant amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill tabled by the UK Government on 17 April 2024, relating to an infected blood compensation body and further interim compensation payments, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

I call Clare Haughey to speak on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee.

16:36  

My committee’s scrutiny of the LCM has been curtailed due to the bill being amended to include provisions affecting devolved matters only at report stage in the House of Lords. The committee sought evidence on the amendments from stakeholders, who raised a number of serious concerns that some of the changes deviate from the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report.

In particular, the submission from Haemophilia Scotland raised concerns that the previous requirement for the infected blood compensation authority, or IBCA, to be chaired by a judge of the High Court or the Court of Session had been removed. In addition, it was concerned that appeal hearings would no longer have the option to be conducted in person and would be before the IBCA rather than an independent appeal body, and that the amendments also appear to remove access to independent legal representation and support during an appeal. Haemophilia Scotland expressed further concern that no provision had been made for the representation of members of the community on the IBCA.

Respondents to the committee’s call for evidence further argued that the IBCA should be accountable to Parliament and not to a minister or department. They suggested that there should be

“a clear, tight, and agreed timetable to get to the point of operational delivery of the scheme.”

On that basis, they were concerned that the amendments remove a three-month timescale from the bill.

Respondents highlight a lack of detail relating to compensation payments, specifically with regard to the circumstances in which payments would be held in trust and the possibility of repayments. They argued that the chair should be responsible for all governance, management, structural and operational matters and for organisational development, and that the existing support scheme in Scotland—the Scottish infected blood support scheme, or SIBSS—should be kept separate from the compensation scheme and guaranteed for life.

Respondents make the case that support payments and compensation payments should be, in their words, “segregated legislatively” and that hepatitis B victims should be included in the interim compensation arrangements. Finally, respondents have suggested that those who are infected and affected by contaminated blood should be involved in the establishment of the IBCA and should have input and a power of veto in relation to key appointments.

Despite those concerns, Haemophilia Scotland noted that it was nonetheless supportive of the amendments because of a

“need to get this legislation into place so that swifter progress can be made to establish a compensation scheme for infected and affected individuals.”

Meanwhile, the Scottish Infected Blood Forum said that we need a

“balance between getting legislation into place so that swifter progress can be made to establish a compensation scheme for infected and affected individuals, and moving ‘at pace’ and then getting it wrong with little possibility of retrospective changes being enacted once views and actions have been solidified.”

The SIBF concludes:

“We finally urge the Health Committee to look at all the specific issues and inclusions outlined above to aid the Scottish Parliament in passing the Legislative Consent Motion (LCM) for the relevant sections of the V&P Bill while opposing those which are not in the best interests of Scottish citizens or devolution.”

The committee concluded its scrutiny by recommending that the Parliament agree to the legislative consent motion. However, we also intend to write to the UK Government to further highlight stakeholder concerns.

16:40  

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as a practising NHS general practitioner.

The contaminated blood products scandal has deeply scarred our four nations. More than 30,000 people in the UK were infected with HIV and hepatitis C during the 1970s and 1980s in what has been called

“the biggest treatment disaster in NHS history”.

For many people, the NHS bought blood products from suppliers whose sources, which included American prisons, often had extremely low contamination-screening standards. Much of the blood was contaminated with sexually transmitted diseases and other viruses that are commonly passed on through needle sharing.

The contaminated products were phased out by 1985, when heat-treated products were introduced. It is estimated that from the 1970s to 1991 around 3,000 people in Scotland were infected with hepatitis C through NHS blood or blood products, and some were infected with HIV in the early 1980s. Many have since died, leaving behind devastated families. To those who lost loved ones or who continue to suffer, the Scottish Conservatives offer their deepest sympathies. We are united in offering our sincerest condolences and unwavering support to all victims.

It is beyond terrible that the NHS patients were given the contaminated blood and that wrongs were committed at all levels. We now share the responsibility for righting those wrongs. Therefore, I support the legislative consent motion for the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which paves the way for the establishment of a single UK-wide compensation scheme to ensure a consistent approach, regardless of where in the UK a victim or family lives.

Justice delayed is justice denied. It is incumbent upon us to process applications as efficiently as possible and to ensure that all those who are affected receive the support that they need and deserve.

Communication is important. We need to double down on efforts to encourage all those in our country who have not yet come forward for compensation to do so. That extends to families, even if their infected family member has since died.

As we confront this dark chapter in our recent history, we must recognise the invaluable lessons that it imparts, including on the importance of dealing with any future failures in such a manner that transparency, compassion and justice prevail.

16:43  

The infected blood scandal is an appalling injustice, as we have heard this afternoon. Labour wants to help to ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered urgently. Therefore, we will support the legislative consent motion.

However, the matter has required the UK Government to be dragged repeatedly to deliver justice. The LCM, tardy as it is, is another example of the UK Government failing to adhere to the will of the UK Parliament and, indeed, to that of this Parliament. A response to late amendments that were tabled by my UK parliamentary colleague, Diana Johnson, and attempts to water them down, resulted in a late timetable being tabled in the House of Lords on 17 April.

It is bewildering that the matter has continued to drag on for as long as it has, given that the UK Government has already confirmed that it fully accepts that there is a moral case for compensation, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the matter has been going on far too long and that

“Justice delayed is justice denied”.

That is why we have a responsibility to work as fast as we can to resolve the matter.

Former Prime Minister Theresa May announced a public inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, back in July 2017 and the inquiry has been running since 2018. The final report is due to be published next month and an interim payment of £100,000 for victims and affected partners was announced in August 2022, based on Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations.

I first raised the case of my constituent in March 2018, while I was a member of the United Kingdom House of Commons. I am sure that all parliamentarians have heard harrowing testimony about their constituents’ experiences. Hundreds of people have been affected across Scotland and many parents carry some of the most horrific experiences with them to this day.

I represented the area in Glasgow where Ruchill hospital was. It was the main hospital in Scotland that dealt with cases of HIV and AIDS during the 1980s epidemic. Many young children died of horrific diseases in that hospital, and their parents had to watch helplessly as their children died, often from haemophilia, while the medicines and treatments that they thought would help to sustain them actually killed them in the most horrific way. We cannot underestimate the damage that that has caused, and continues to cause, across this country.

At the third reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill on 4 December, the Government lost a vote on proposed new clause 27 in an amendment in the name of Dame Diana Johnson, which was an historic rebellion against the Government. The vote was remarkable; it was a remarkable victory for the victims in the infected blood scandal. The UK Government is now obliged to do the right thing and to take the necessary steps to urgently set up a final compensation body.

However, it is clear that the recommendations that have been outlined have not been adhered to fully. We have concerns about that. We have heard from a number of stakeholder groups that have worked hard to raise their concerns over the years. The Hepatitis C Trust, for example, has said that the announcement has

“blindsided campaigners and the infected blood community”.

It continued:

“We are concerned about the remit of this new expert panel and its purpose, and whether it may constitute yet another barrier to delivering justice … They must urgently clarify what the group has been set up to do, who is part of it, and how their advice will be made public.”

The Haemophilia Society said:

“This announcement, which was made without any consultation with the infected blood community, raises more questions than it answers.

We do not know which experts are on Professor Montgomery’s team nor has their appointment process been publicised. We do not know the panel’s remit or whether their advice will ever find its way into the public domain.”

The amendments might be necessary in order for the Government to take action on establishing a compensation body for victims of the injustice, but the Government amendments do not include a commitment to delivering concrete action when the set three-month time limit is met. That is why it is essential that, although we will approve the LCM today, the Scottish Government raises with the UK Government, at the earliest opportunity, those concerns on behalf of stakeholder groups, which the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee will also do.

16:47  

I thank members from across the chamber for their contributions to this short but important debate. I also thank members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for their contributions to the discussion on the issue this morning. I am grateful for all the useful questions and important points that have been raised today, and I welcome the committee’s proposal that it will write to the UK Government to set out some of the concerns that stakeholders have raised.

I know that all of us in the chamber want to put the needs of the victims of this terrible tragedy first. As a result, I hope that we can all agree that the right thing to do now is to make concrete progress on delivering the arrangements for compensation. Those who have been infected and affected have waited for far too long to see progress being made, and many of the relatives of those who have sadly died have so far received nothing or only relatively small amounts of financial support.

As I have set out, the main parts of the UK Government amendments deliver the key recommendation of the infected blood inquiry by setting up the infected blood compensation authority. That authority, which will be legally established on royal assent after passing of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, will deliver the infected blood compensation scheme. The amendments will also ensure that people in Scotland will have access to the compensation scheme on the same basis as those elsewhere in the UK and that many bereaved families will get the opportunity to receive interim compensation while the final scheme is being set up.

Much of the detail of the scheme will have to be set out in regulations. I know that that creates uncertainty for victims, but I will work to ensure that the regulations work for all infected and affected victims in Scotland. In response to Paul Sweeney, I note that I will raise with the Cabinet Office some of the points that members have raised today.

I ask members to support the motion that has been lodged in my name so that we can finally begin to make progress on providing compensation to all the people who were affected so badly by the terrible tragedy that took place.