Maternity Safety Strategy

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he knows, because he has spoken so movingly on this subject many times, there is absolutely nothing we can do to make up for the searing loss of losing a loved one—a baby. It is the worst thing any parent can go through. We can at least give them the commitment that we will learn. If we are honest, we do not do so at the moment, because we sometimes wait 10 years for a court case to be settled, and even then it is not always clear to me that the lessons of what happened are properly learned around the system. This statement is an attempt to change that.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s approach to more openness and transparency in the NHS around baby deaths. However, he will remember signing a letter in May 2016, along with the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the then Secretary of State for Justice, on an independent inquiry into the baby ashes scandal in Hull. That inquiry has never happened and parents still do not have the answers about what happened in the NHS and Hull City Council in respect of their babies’ ashes. Will the Secretary of State recommit to that independent inquiry going ahead with his permission?

[Mr Hunt]

I am happy to recommit to that. I apologise to the hon. Lady and her constituents for the delay. I will look into what happened right away.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)]

I am aware that the performance of the East Midlands ambulance service is not what local residents or we would like at present. The strategy that is being adopted is to introduce a new ambulance response programme, and EMAS has an ongoing consultation with staff on introducing new working models to bring that into effect.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Minister has just said that pharmacies are a critical part of our primary care infrastructure. Does he therefore share my concern that Lloyds Pharmacy has announced 190 branch closures across England due to funding cuts exacerbated by rising drug costs and cash-flow problems? At least two of those are in Hull. Why can 30% of pharmacies in the Health Secretary’s constituency get remedial help under the pharmacy access scheme but only 1.3% of pharmacies in Hull get that help?

[Steve Brine]

The simple answer is that it is because it is a rural constituency. On the Lloyds Pharmacy announcement, when I first heard that news my thought was not to play any politics with it but for the staff who will be affected by it. As I said at the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy, chaired by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), Lloyds has made a commercial decision. We do not yet know which pharmacies within its portfolio will close, but we do know that 40% of pharmacies are within a 10-minute walk of two or more others.

Abortion Act 1967: 50th Anniversary

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Fifty years ago, the noble Lord Steel and thousands of brave campaigners brought about a momentous change in women’s reproductive rights. It is hard to overstate the benefits that their campaign brought to women. Abortion has gone from being a leading cause of maternal mortality, shockingly responsible for 14% of maternal deaths—a fact that organisations such as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children do not address when they call for the abolition of the 1967 Act—to being the most common medical or surgical procedure in the UK, one that a third of women will have had by the time they reach 45. We used to be a country where an estimated 87,000 to 100,000 illegal abortions took place every year and where unwanted pregnancies changed the lives of desperate women. Now, 200,000 women a year can access safe, free and legal services on the NHS.

The 1967 Act was a landmark piece of legislation. For a time, it made Britain one of the world leaders in reproductive rights, when this Parliament introduced a humane piece of law. I am disappointed that no Minister from the Department of Health or the Government Equalities Office has attended any of the events marking the enactment of this piece of legislation. I am also disappointed that Ministers have chosen to award funding raised from the tampon tax to Life, which argues for restricting women’s choices on reproductive rights, when so many wonderful charities could have benefited and used the money to empower women and support their choices.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. When I debated with the pro-life charity Life on the radio recently, I was told that if a women it was helping went on to decide to have a termination, it would withdraw support, including housing, from that women. Does she agree that that is incredibly concerning?

[Diana Johnson]

Yes, that is incredibly concerning and I think it is a really bad decision of the Government to award money from the tampon tax to that organisation.

As this House tonight rightly marks the milestone of the Abortion Act, we should also reflect on whether the Act is still fit for purpose. The Abortion Act was never intended to be the end of the campaign for women’s reproductive rights. That point was put succinctly by the late Madeleine Simms, a former campaigner at the Abortion Law Reform Association and one of the architects of the original law. She said:

“The 1967 Abortion Act was a half-way house. It handed the abortion decision to the medical profession. The next stage is to hand this very personal decision to the woman herself.”

I want to turn to why the abortion law needs reforming. Britain’s abortion laws are governed not just by that 50-year-old Act, but by the 88-year-old Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and the 156-year-old Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Taken together, this is the oldest legal framework for any healthcare procedure in the UK. It is a framework that, astonishingly, still treats the act of abortion as inherently criminal and punishable by life imprisonment. As I have mentioned, one third of women, and the healthcare professionals who support them, are stigmatised by these laws. As Madeleine Simms highlighted, the 1967 Act did not give women authority over their own abortions; it merely handed that authority to the medical profession, subject to the consent of two doctors. No other medical procedure requires the sign-off of two doctors, and nor does that requirement exist in most other countries in which abortion is legal.

While other healthcare areas have moved towards more patient-centred provision, with a better doctor-patient relationship, the provisions of the 1967 Act are, despite the best efforts of healthcare professionals, holding back similar progress in reproductive healthcare. Furthermore, as Professor Lesley Regan of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said:

“No other medical procedure in the UK is so out of step with clinical and technological developments”.

Since 2014, the majority of abortions in England and Wales have been carried out medically, using pills. The 1967 Act was not designed with medical abortions in mind; it was passed when the overwhelming majority of abortions were carried out through surgical techniques.

I regret the fact that, in the 50 years since the Abortion Act was passed, Parliament has mostly shied away from debating issues such as those I have just set out. In March, the House of Commons heard the First Reading of my ten-minute rule Bill on the decriminalisation of abortion in England and Wales. In the 50 years before I introduced the Bill, previous MPs had introduced 11 Bills to amend our abortion laws—seven were private Members’ Bills and four were, like mine, ten-minute rule Bills. All 11 attempted to restrict abortion in some way; not a single one was about improving provision or better supporting women. It seems peculiar that for a procedure so common—one that affects a third of women—the overwhelming parliamentary focus has been on ways to restrict the practice. Had this procedure affected a third of men, it is hard to imagine that we would have debated it in the same way.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that parliamentary opinion on this matter is massively out of step with public opinion? The vast majority of people in this country favour safe and legal abortion.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, although the House did give my ten-minute rule Bill to decriminalise abortion its First Reading. It will be interesting to see the result if it is debated again in the new Parliament.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am very impressed by the hon. Lady, as she knows because I spoke to her before the debate to ask to intervene. She knows my opinion on these matters. I understand that she is going to bring some things forward, which would be a help, but at the same time we are meant to believe that abortion is somehow an expression of women’s rights, but, on the contrary, some of us believe that it is so often the means by which vulnerable young women are themselves destroyed by the sorrow it can naturally engender. Even when abortion itself does not cause the destruction of women, their mistreatment by the industry that provides abortion daily in this country clearly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

Clearly, 50 years ago Parliament took the view that it was going to allow abortions to take place in certain circumstances. It is right and proper that there is strict regulation around abortion. When I discussed decriminalisation earlier in the year, I talked about decriminalising, not deregulating. All providers have to provide the highest-quality care to women.

Successive British Governments have failed to act to improve abortion provision. They have sometimes hidden behind the false pretext that issues of provision are issues of conscience, thereby setting the issue aside as too difficult to tackle. In the months before and since I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, yet more compelling evidence has demonstrated the need for long overdue changes to our abortion laws. Women, including desperate victims of domestic abuse, are increasingly ill-served by our current laws and criminalised for buying abortion pills online.

Waiting times for abortion services appear to be on the rise. Recently, figures obtained by investigative journalists at “The Debrief” showed that in 76% of the clinical commissioning groups and NHS trusts they surveyed, average abortion waiting times in 2016 were higher than they were in 2013. The Family Planning Association tells women that they should have to wait only 10 working days for an abortion, but a quarter of CCGs and trusts have average waiting times longer than that. In my local CCG in Hull, waiting times have jumped 6.7 days in just a year—one of the highest jumps identified.

The number of abortion pills seized by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency posted to addresses in Britain has risen seventy-fivefold, from just five in 2013 to 375 in 2016. From November 2016 to February 2017, Women on Web, an international organisation that prescribes abortion pills in countries where abortion is illegal, monitored the number of British women who sought help on its website. In the space of just four months, the number seeking help had doubled.

Those figures point to this conclusion: there is a rising, and unmet, demand for better abortion provision in this country.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I am going to carry on, because I am conscious of time.

The personal cases of these women are often deeply moving. A recent study of Women on Web’s services, published in September, has provided unprecedented insight into the challenges that British women face in accessing abortion services. Of the women who approached its service, nearly one in five did so because of “controlling circumstances” at home—from abusive partners to intolerant families. As one woman told the service:

“I’m in a controlling relationship, he watches my every move. I’m so scared he will find out, I believe he’s trying to trap me and will hurt me. I can’t breathe. If he finds out, he wouldn’t let me go ahead, then I will be trapped forever. I cannot live my life like this.”

Another said:

“I’m never allowed to go anywhere without my husband or a member of his family escorting me. I don’t have a normal life since getting married. Abortion is against his family’s religion and I’m very worried what would happen if I was caught.”

For many women, making two trips to an abortion clinic, as is currently required, is simply not an option. A range of practical factors—the distance they live from a clinic, delays in accessing support, and childcare and work commitments—prevent them from making those trips. Yet each time these women purchase pills online, they are committing a criminal act, and because Women on Web does not prescribe pills in the UK, they are forced to turn to other providers, some of which may not be legitimate.

We are now in the position where the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Midwives, plus the noble Lord Steel all agree that the law needs to be updated, and that abortion should be decriminalised. It is now time for Parliament to act on this. Shortly, I will be publishing the text of a Bill to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales. I am currently working on the Bill with legal experts and professional healthcare organisations. The Bill will contain the same safeguards and regulations as those that I set out in March this year.

Most importantly, it will take women out of the criminal law altogether. Healthcare professionals who assist in abortions before 24 weeks’ gestation will also be decriminalised, and they will receive further protections after 24 weeks. It will also allow us to make the best possible provision for the women who have early medical abortions. We need to look at the requirement to obtain two doctors’ signatures. We should also ask whether the second abortion pill could not be taken at home should women wish to do so, just as it is in the United States, France, Sweden and, as announced recently, Scotland.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I will carry on, because I am conscious that the Minister has to respond.

I want to make the point that decriminalisation will not mean deregulation. The 24-week time limit will not be changed, and the conditions for accessing abortions post-24 weeks will not change either, but I do want to see stronger protection for women from non-consensual abortions—whether by assaulting pregnant women, or deceiving women into taking abortion medication.

I have a few requests for the Minister. It is time that we acknowledged that abortion provision is not a conscience issue. Access to abortion services is a core part of women’s healthcare. It should be debated in a grown-up way, and Health Ministers should be held accountable for the quality of our abortion services. First, will the Department of Health look into the problems that women are facing in accessing abortions? The Department should be regularly assessing the problem of abortion waiting times. It should be looking to identify local areas where there is poor provision. The problems that extremely vulnerable women face in accessing abortion care should also be investigated.

Secondly, what concrete steps will the Government take to improve abortion provision? A court judgment in 2011 established that the Health Secretary could allow home use of the second abortion pill without the need for new legislation. In the light of that and of what has happened in Scotland, what are the Government planning to do? Furthermore, an increasing number of experts have questioned the two doctor requirement for early stage abortion. Will the Minister comment on that?

Thirdly, how will the Government respond to the calls to decriminalise abortion, supported by three professional medical bodies? Will the Government consider acting on these calls? Finally, we must also recognise the situation in a country where the Abortion Act does not apply. In Northern Ireland, abortion is highly restricted and criminal, even in cases of rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality. The ongoing Supreme Court case raises the prospect that this may soon go beyond a devolved matter and become a broader human rights matter. What steps are the Government taking for that to be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

In conclusion, the House should mark the anniversary of the Abortion Act—not just because of what we have achieved, but to look forward to what we need now. In the face of threats to women’s reproductive rights at home and abroad, the answer is not to become timid and to remain defensive. The answer is to be bolder, to go beyond merely defending what we currently have, and to make a positive case for stronger rights and better women-centred provision. The ’67 Act made Britain a world leader in women’s reproductive rights, but it is time that we took the steps now to ensure that, once again, Britain reassumes this world-leading position.

Baby Loss Awareness Week

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to be called to speak in this debate. I took part in the debate last year and was very moved by the contributions. I am pleased that we have such excellent speakers again today. I wish to pay tribute to the all-party group for the wonderful work that it has done, and to say to the Government that their record of making improvements and investing in this area is to be applauded.

I am having to stand here again because I wish to speak about my constituents, Mike and Tina Trowhill. Members may remember that I spoke about them last year. Many years ago, they lost their little boy, William, who was then cremated. They were told that there were no ashes, but 20 years later they found that there had been ashes and that they had been scattered without the family’s knowledge. Mike and Tina started to ask questions, and it became clear that they were not the only family that this had happened to. It now appears that there are about 70 families in the Hull area who share their experience. The ashes of those babies may have been left on the shelves of the funeral director’s offices. There was one instance of a baby being cremated, with no indication of an undertaker being used. Nobody seems to know quite how that happened.

When this all came to light, I went to see the council, because I knew that there had been similar instances in Shrewsbury and Scotland and that there had been inquiries about what had happened in those areas. It was on 27 March 2015 that I went to the council with Mike and Tina and we asked whether we could have an inquiry into what had happened to these 70-odd families. It took three and a half months for the council to say that no, it was not willing to do that. I felt that there was an injustice here and that these families needed to know what had happened to their babies’ ashes.

In February 2016, I went to see the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who, at that time, was Secretary of State for Justice. He wrote a letter to Hull City Council, which said:

“My fellow Secretaries of State at the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government have agreed with me that there is a need for an historic investigation into the practices relating to infant cremations in the Hull area, and we have today jointly written to the Chief Executive of Hull City Council asking him to commission this. We have suggested that the Hull investigation should have terms of reference similar to those of the Emstrey inquiry.”

I was very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. He met my constituents and was incredibly compassionate and understanding. It is really important to see a politician showing such kindness. However, unfortunately, Hull City Council said that it did not need to hold that inquiry and there was a change in Justice Secretary. Without any reference to me, Tina or any of the other families, the Ministry of Justice decided not to pursue the issue with Hull City Council. It accepted that Hull had done everything it needed to do and that everything was fine. I was not told that. I only found it out because the council told me that it was no longer considering holding an inquiry. I was livid and, as Members can imagine, my constituent was completely dismayed. She has now formed a group with the other families called Action for Ashes in Hull.

The families were absolutely dismayed, as their hope of getting the answer to what had happened was snatched away from them. However, the new Justice Secretary did write to Hull City Council, suggesting that it might like to meet the Action for Ashes group. The council refused to do that, saying that it was not willing to meet the group, but that it would meet me, Tina and one other parent. We had that meeting on 24 March 2017. I specifically asked for the full investigation that it said it had carried out to be published so that we could see what it had actually done. That took four months. On 25 July, my constituent Tina was given 27 minutes’ notice that the report was about to be published and given to the press. It was not sent to any of the other parents who were in the group.

A 22-page internal report was produced by Hull City Council, but so many questions still needed answering—questions, as I said at the outset, about why babies’ ashes were left on the shelves of funeral directors and why families were told there were no ashes in the first instance. None of that was properly addressed, and there was no investigation into the role the NHS had played or into the independent funeral directors who had been involved. The report also looked at just 2% of the cremations that had been carried out in the area, whereas, in Shropshire, the Emstrey inquiry looked at 100%—it combed through all the records. In Hull, the report looked only at the families who had come forward and self-identified.

A year on from the last time I raised this issue in Parliament, Hull City Council still believes it has done everything it needs to do, despite families saying they still have not got the answers they need. I still do not understand why, in Shrewsbury and Scotland, an inquiry was appropriate, but one is not appropriate for the people I represent. There have never been clear answers and explanations about what happened. One Conservative Member made the point that there seems to be a fear that this will turn into a legal dispute and that there will be an opportunity for compensation. That is not what these families want; they just want to know what happened, why they were told things that were not true, and who knew what when. It is that basic information that they are still seeking.

I hope very much that come next year—I hope there will be a debate again, because this is an important issue, which we need to discuss each year—I do not have to come here and say, “I am still fighting to get a local authority to display the kindness and compassion this group of people truly deserves.” I am staggered that I am still having to fight this case, because it is absolutely obvious that an internal investigation is not sufficient. What we need is to have some fresh air in this case and to have someone independent come in, look at all the records and ask the families about what happened. That seems to me the best way forward, the kindest way forward and the way we will actually get justice and truth for these families finally.

Contaminated Blood

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the responsibility for establishing an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

I begin by adding my personal apology to those who have previously spoken in this House about the tragedy of contaminated blood, and by reiterating that the Government recognise the terrible impact contaminated blood has had on many thousands of lives.

The Government recognise that previous inquiries into the events that led to thousands of people being infected with HIV and/or hepatitis C through NHS-supplied blood or blood products did not go far enough. That is why, on Tuesday 11 July 2017, the Prime Minister committed to establishing a further inquiry so that the causes of this tragedy can be fully understood.

Once established, we want the inquiry to be fully independent. Before it is established, however, there is a need to define its scope and format so that terms of reference may be set by the relevant Secretary of State. Given the tragedy’s impact on so many lives, it is vital that we get this right and that we get it right from the start. I am aware of the concerns that have been raised this week by those affected, by campaign groups and by Members of this House. Indeed, I spoke to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on Tuesday about this very issue.

I reassure the House that the Government have as yet made no final decisions on the scope and format of an inquiry, or on its leadership. I have newly taken on this policy area, and I am keen to make sure that all those affected are given an opportunity to give us their thoughts and opinions. I understand it is normal practice for public inquiries to be sponsored by the relevant Department. However, we are keen to listen to the concerns that have been raised and ensure that they are addressed, which is why we are in discussions with the Cabinet Office and colleagues across Government to ensure that this inquiry does its job, and does it well, under appropriate leadership.

That is why an early consultative meeting was scheduled for today, hosted at the Cabinet Office, and the Secretary of State and Ministers hope to understand further the important views of those affected on the shape and establishment of an inquiry. This is the first of several meetings that the Government would like to offer over the coming weeks. I strongly encourage anyone affected to give us their views. Our door is open to anyone who wants to discuss the inquiry or raise any concerns they may have.

It is important to note that, whatever arrangements are agreed for this independent inquiry, safeguards will be put in place to ensure independence—for instance, by ensuring that the secretary to the inquiry has never worked at the Department of Health or any of its agencies. I reiterate that we are absolutely committed to a thorough and transparent inquiry, and we want to establish the best format and remit. That is why we want to hear as many opinions as possible, and we will work with those affected and Members of this House to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity of what she has just said. I should emphasise that this is not an occasion for a general debate on the contaminated blood scandal. We have had that on many occasions, and I have also granted urgent questions previously to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on this matter. The issue is very specifically the locus, the responsibility and possibly, at a stretch, the scope. If Members can tailor their questions accordingly, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Diana Johnson]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.

Although I welcome last week’s announcement of an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal, the vast majority of people affected by this scandal, their families, campaign groups and legal representatives, plus many cross-party parliamentarians, are, like me, dismayed to see the Department of Health leading on the establishment of this inquiry. The Department of Health, an implicated party at the heart of so much that has gone wrong over the past 45 years, must have no role in how this inquiry is established—in my view, it is akin to asking South Yorkshire police to lead an inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster. I regret that the Government have not been able to understand that putting the Department of Health in charge at this time immediately undermines their excellent decision to call a public inquiry last week. In consequence, contaminated blood campaigners boycotted a meeting organised by the Department of Health at 10 am today in protest. Another Department must surely now take over the responsibility for consulting on the remit of this inquiry.

I am pleased that the Government acknowledge the overwhelming and unanimous opposition to the Department of Health consulting on the inquiry, including from more than 250 campaigners and 10 campaign groups, the Haemophilia Society, and the law firms Collins Law and Leigh Day, which together represent 716 claimants. Nevertheless, the Minister needs to address two questions urgently. Why, on Tuesday 18 July, did the Department of Health call a meeting for 10 am today, with just two days’ notice, in central London, and at a time that is most difficult, inconvenient and expensive for people affected to attend? When I spoke to the Minister, she told me that the Government plan to update the House by September and get the inquiry up and running as soon as possible. That had not been made clear to campaigners or MPs, and I wondered why.

I still believe that the case is even more pressing for another Department to take over the work of establishing this inquiry now. That Department must then have a true and meaningful consultation with everyone affected, so that they can be fully involved and have confidence in this public inquiry.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

As I mentioned, no firm view has been taken as to which Department will run the inquiry, but as the Minister with responsibility for this area the House would consider it amiss if I were not having meetings and discussions with those affected about the inquiry’s remit. When the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), made the statement to the House about the inquiry, we made it clear that we wanted to progress as soon as possible. The Secretary of State called this meeting because we want to hear directly from the victims about what they want from the inquiry. We are very much in listening mode. A decision has not yet been taken as to which Department will run the inquiry but ultimately, as a Minister, I am accountable to Parliament for what happens in the Department of Health in those areas for which I have responsibility, and I want to be leading from the front, having those discussions.

Contaminated Blood

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the need for an independent public inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.

May I first thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this emergency debate? This is the first such debate on the contaminated blood scandal, and it arises, as you know, after further evidence of criminal actions was produced by the right hon. Andy Burnham and after a joint letter calling for a Hillsborough-style inquiry from all six non-Government Westminster party leaders. After the announcement this lunchtime from Downing Street of a full inquiry into the scandal, emergency debates may become an even more popular route to get the Government to listen and act.

In the light of the announcement, I want to acknowledge all the people who have been involved in getting us to this point. I will start by thanking my constituent Glenn Wilkinson for his persistence and dogged determination when he came to see me in 2010 to tell me his story. I have kept him at the centre of whatever I have attempted to do on this issue. I also thank the many individuals and campaign groups who have fought for years to get to this point: the Manor House group, the Contaminated Blood Campaign, and Tainted Blood. I thank the Haemophilia Society, in particular Liz Carroll, its chief executive, and Jefferson Courtney, the policy and public affairs manager. Over 2,400 individuals have tragically lost their lives. They are not here to see this announcement, but their voices live on through their family members, who have never given up fighting for them. The campaign, which has run for many years, has at times had the great benefit of brilliant investigative journalists, including Caroline Wheeler of The Sunday Times, who was formerly a correspondent on the Hull Daily Mail, and the many researchers and journalists who worked on the BBC “Panorama” documentary on the disaster from just a few months ago. I know that the Daily Mail is not a favourite of yours, Mr Speaker, but it also ran a good story on its front page last week.

I thank the 111 parliamentarians who are members of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, particularly my co-chair the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the previous chair Jason McCartney, who is no longer a Member, Margaret Ritchie and Mark Durkan, who are also no longer Members but were vocal in the campaign, and of course the right hon. Andy Burnham, who set out clearly in his valedictory speech why this was unfinished business and why we needed a public inquiry. Finally, I thank the late right hon. Paul Goggins, who was a huge inspiration in this cause.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is completely right to thank all those people, but there is one person missing from that list: herself. The whole House should thank her for her tireless work over the past seven years on this absolutely brilliant campaign. This shows how Parliament should work: a constituent raised the issue with her; she campaigned on it non-stop; she was not fobbed off; she pursued it doggedly; and she has played a huge role in bringing us to this point. Last night, I had a load of emails from constituents who have been affected by this scandal, and I want to say how grateful they are to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments, but this is down to the combined effort of so many people over so many years.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been dogged in her determination and in not giving up. My constituent David Thomas came to see me in similar circumstances, as many constituents have done with Members on both sides of the House, but if he had not done so I would not even have been aware of the scandal, let alone of the need to deal with it so fully. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the national and regional groups, such as Haemophilia Wales, who have done so much to stand up for those affected in particular locations? Their work has highlighted that this was a legacy issue from the UK Department of Health and that complications relating to the devolved status of health services across the UK need to be addressed in the inquiry.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes that point well.

I want to comment on how we handle disasters and on the best way forward for a Hillsborough-style inquiry established by the Government.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Lady on her brilliant leadership on this issue. While the announcement is incredibly welcome news, does she agree that there is an urgency here, because the people who continue to suffer need help now? There is a danger of the process going on for years and leaving them still waiting for support.

[Diana Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The timetabling of any inquiry needs to be set out clearly, and I hope that the Minister may be able to help us with that.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, and I congratulate her and Andy Burnham, because this issue has been going on for a very long time. Has she had any indication from No. 10 Downing Street about the form of the inquiry? Some of my constituents have similar problems to her constituents, so can she give us any clarification?

[Diana Johnson]

Just like every other Member, I have only seen what is out in the media, and I understand that there will be a consultation on the form of the inquiry. I am sure that the Minister will be able to help us in his contribution.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I join in the tributes to the hon. Lady and the all-party group, of which I have been a member, because this is an example of how Parliament can work well. There is a family in Letchworth who said to me:

“As a family, we have suffered years of misery because of this scandal.”

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is right to consult the victims and their families on the form of the inquiry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good point and I will come on to that.

I do not need to remind the House of the damage that public disasters do to all those who are affected, as we know from the Hillsborough tragedy in 1989 and, more recently, the appalling fire at Grenfell Tower. Every public disaster of this kind is different: their causes differ; the victims suffer in different ways; and the measures necessary to support those affected, and their families, also differ. However, every victim has a fundamental right to one thing: answers. They deserve to be told what went wrong, why it went wrong, and who is responsible for what happened. The story of the injustice they have suffered needs to be set out and told to the wider public. Their voices need to be heard. Apologies, compensation and other forms of support are essential, but if their right to answers is not also satisfied, they will be denied true and meaningful justice.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and I thank her for all her work. As she said at the beginning, many, many victims have died. Their families are still here and are still grieving, and they need answers as much as the victims.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This tragedy has taken the life of more than 2,400 people with haemophilia, infected mainly through blood factor concentrates. Many others, without bleeding disorders, infected through blood transfusions and other means have also lost their lives. Thousands more have been left devastated. The survivors have been left to live with a combination of HIV, hepatitis C and a range of other viruses.

My constituent Glen Wilkinson is one such individual. He has haemophilia and was infected with hepatitis C when he was just 19 during a routine tooth operation. Glen is one of thousands of people who have fallen victim to the worst treatment disaster in the history of our NHS, and one of the worst peacetime disasters ever to take place in this country. Indeed, each of the 15 or so non-terrorist related public disasters I have looked at—ranging from the Bradford City stadium fire in 1985 to the Clapham Junction crash in 1988, the Marchioness disaster and, of course, Hillsborough—was a tragic event, and I do not wish to detract from the magnitude of those events, but the House should note that all those disasters led to a public inquiry.

Hon. Members and their affected constituents are entitled to ask why the same has not happened with contaminated blood. Had more than 2,400 people died over the course of one day or one year, it would be inconceivable for any Government to refuse calls for a public inquiry, yet the devastation caused by the contaminated blood scandal has been spread not over days or years but over several decades.

We must also bear in mind the profound effect this scandal has had on one community, those with bleeding disorders, many of whom were provided with contaminated blood factor concentrates sourced from profit-making American firms. Virtually everyone who had haemophilia at the time has been infected.

Hon. Members will appreciate that the impact can be devastating when friends and close-knit communities are hit by a collective tragedy. Consider, for example, the Treloar school for disabled children, a special school with a large number of pupils with haemophilia: 72 of its pupils have died because of this scandal. Many were forced to be silent to the suffering, either for fear of the stigma of having HIV, hepatitis C or other viruses, or because they were not even aware that they had those conditions. Important though that distinction is, it does not excuse the fact that successive Governments of all colours have sidestepped the issue for too long.

Internationally, an investigation saw the imprisonment of the former head of France’s blood transfusion service and his deputy, and a former French Health Minister was found guilty of manslaughter. In Japan, three company executives were imprisoned and an official was convicted on negligence charges. In the United States, the private companies involved in this tragedy paid out millions in out-of-court settlements across the world.

But nothing of that kind has happened in the UK. In 1991, in response to the threat of court cases, the Government set up an ex gratia payments scheme. There was no implication of liability, no use of the word “compensation” and waivers renouncing the individual’s right to the take further legal action had to be signed before they could obtain small sums of money.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

A constituent, who does not wish to be named, wants us to include the remit of the Skipton Fund in this review. She, and many others, feel that the remit was wrongly drawn up, and that she and others have been denied the justice they should have had.

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Lady makes an important point.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on this issue. I welcome the fact that there will be a public inquiry, eventually and at last. Does she agree that that public inquiry should address why the UK was the last country in the western world to introduce a test for hepatitis C, why vital documents were destroyed by the Department of Health and why the UK took 13 years to be self-sufficient in blood products, when it took Ireland only five years?

[Diana Johnson]

Those are important questions for any inquiry to address.

On today’s announcement, the Westminster leaders’ joint letter of 7 July provided a blueprint for how such an inquiry should be conducted. First, as with Hillsborough, there should be a commitment to secure full public disclosure of details related to this tragedy, through a process managed by the affected community. There should be a mechanism to ensure all public bodies involved in the scandal are compelled to give oral and written evidence to the inquiry. There need to be assurances that the inquiry will cover the role of American firms in providing blood factor concentrates to people with haemophilia. There should also be an investigation not just of the run-up to the scandal but of its aftermath. Finally, the inquiry has to address the allegations of criminal conduct. As I said earlier, I hope the Minister will also be able to help us with a timetable for the inquiry, as those affected have waited so long to get to this point.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s chairpersonship of the all-party parliamentary group. My constituent Cathy Young is grateful to her and to other MPs, because those affected would have given up if not for Members of Parliament pursuing this issue. Cathy Young now has access to her husband’s health records, which she describes as a fairy tale. Does the hon. Lady agree that those affected by this scandal, if they have not already done so, should get, and have a look at, their family health records?

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I certainly agree.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her outstanding leadership on this important issue. My constituent Alex Smith has been affected by contaminated blood. A great deal has been said about the Government response and the potential criminal cover-up, but there is also the immoral way in which the victims have been treated and the payments they receive. Many are living in absolute destitution and poverty as a result of Government penny-pinching, which should form part of the review.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend is correct. We need to look carefully at the support that has been provided for this group, and at what should be provided in the future.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I add my thanks, on behalf of my constituent Haydn Lewis and his family. Haydn and his brother have died, and other members of their family have been affected. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should learn from the lessons of the thalidomide inquiry and compensation fund to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes that were made on thalidomide?

[Diana Johnson]

That is an excellent point, and it needs to be considered.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I will give way one last time.

[Hywel Williams]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I pay tribute to her on behalf of my constituent Jane Jones, whose family have had to deal with great privation for many years because of the scandal. In a written answer to the Welsh Assembly on 27 March there was confirmation that the payments continue to be made on an ex gratia basis, but with no liability being accepted. The answer was in Welsh, but it confirms that the payment of £10,000 to a partner or widow continues on an ex gratia basis.

[Diana Johnson]

That goes to the heart of it. There has never been any finding of liability, which has resulted in very low payments being made on a support basis, rather than on a compensatory basis.

I strongly believe, and I think the majority of the APPG believe, that a Hillsborough-style inquiry is the best way forward in this case, putting those affected at the heart of whatever is created and set up. They should be given the opportunity to have an input into the terms of reference. They should be able to look at people being considered as the chairperson or panel members of the inquiry, which has to have the support and confidence of all those affected. That is why the Hillsborough inquiry seemed to work effectively. In the case of Hillsborough, this was known as “Families First”, and I hope that approach might be able to continue in this inquiry as it is set up. All those affected need to be treated with the utmost respect and reverence, and to be fully consulted; any information that becomes available should first go to them.

In the remaining few minutes, I wish to talk about the four questions that I think the inquiry needs to look at. Andy Burnham set out in his speech why an inquiry was necessary, and of course he was one of two former Health Secretaries, the other being Lord Owen, who had raised serious concerns about the scandal. We know that the “Panorama” programme and the Daily Mail article followed. Given what Andy Burnham said and all the developments in the past few months, serious questions still need to be addressed by a public inquiry. First, why did the Government not act sooner to protect blood supplies once the risks became known? And why were we so reliant on American commercial products for haemophilia patients?

The UK was not self-sufficient in blood supplies, so profit-making American companies played a considerable role in supplying factor concentrates to haemophilia patients. That blood was sourced from much riskier patients, including prison inmates, who were much more likely to have infections and had a financial incentive to be less than honest about their risks of infection. The dangers of American products were discussed in public not from the 1990s, nor the 1980s, but from 1970. As the Daily Mail reported last week, files now suggest that at least as early as 1980 officials had even put an estimate on the number of haemophilia patients being infected from these products with what we now know to be hepatitis C. They put the figure at 50 a year, yet it was not until 1986 that they took any action to address that.

If the whole of the UK had been self-sufficient in blood supplies, fewer haemophilia patients would have been infected. We know that, because Scotland had higher levels of self-sufficiency than England. As the BBC “Panorama” programme outlined, that meant that haemophiliacs in England were twice as likely to be infected with HIV as those in Scotland. Even in the mid-1980s, when the dangers of hepatitis C and HIV became known, it appears we could have acted sooner to remove risky blood products. And when the United States started screening its commercial products from March 1983, we carried on using non-screened American supplies that we had purchased before then; how can that possibly be justified?

My second question for the inquiry is: why were patients kept in the dark and not told of the risks once they became known? There are many aspects to this controversy that I know other hon. Members may wish to touch on, but I want to draw the House’s attention to developments in 1983, in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, when there was still uncertainty over whether AIDS was a blood-borne disease.

In November 1983, the then Health Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), told Parliament that there was

“no conclusive evidence that…AIDS is transmitted by blood products.”—[Official Report, 14 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 327-8W.]

Yet earlier that same year his Department was preparing internal documents that said the opposite: in August 1983, that same Department was telling practising homosexuals and drug users not to give blood because of the risk of transmitting AIDS; in the summer of 1983, the Department was preparing a blood donor leaflet that said AIDS was “almost certainly” transmitted by blood and blood products; in July 1983, the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors’ Organisation said that young children with haemophilia should receive a less risky form of blood product due to the dangers of AIDS; and between March and May 1983, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service prepared a leaflet for blood donors, which included “haemophiliacs” and “recipients of blood transfusion” on a list of people who could get AIDS, and asked those same individuals not to give blood. Of course, the Scottish Penrose inquiry itself acknowledged that in adopting its position in November 1983, the then Government relied on

“a highly nuanced use of language.”

My third question is: why were some people tested for viruses without their knowledge and only told of the results many years later? There are many such cases of this happening, but I will make reference to just one: Jonathan Evans first tested positive for HIV in 1984 yet was not told of this until seven months later, in mid-1985. That posed a huge health risk to his wider family, and the history of this scandal is full of cases of spouses infecting each other. Tragically, the virus took his life. His son, Jason, was just four years old when his father died. He is still campaigning for justice for his father, and he has been instrumental in generating recent news coverage in the Daily Mail article and elsewhere.

Fourthly, there are allegations of a criminal cover-up, on an industrial scale, from the highest ranks of government downwards. At every stage of this scandal, there are concerns that officials knew more than they were letting on. Almost everyone affected by the scandal has encountered issues with lost medical records. Others have recovered their files, only to find that any mention of the connection with contaminated blood has been removed. Some individuals today are unable to access financial support via the Skipton Fund because of what has happened to their medical records. These cases of lost records also extend to the highest level of government. During the Archer inquiry, Lord Owen requested his departmental papers from the time when he was a Health Minister in the 1970s. He was told they had been destroyed

“under the 10-year rule”,

even though there is no evidence of the existence of such a rule.

Finally, when people were forced to sign waivers in 1991, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, they were asked to commit to bringing no further hepatitis C litigation as well as HIV litigation. These individuals did not yet know they had hepatitis C, as the disease has a long incubation period. It seems that the inescapable conclusion is that departmental officials knew more than they were willing to disclose.

In conclusion, earlier this week the Prime Minister expressed her intention to work more with other party leaders to act in the best interests of this country. She has shown a laudable commitment to that with respect to other public disasters, including the child abuse inquiry and the Hillsborough disaster. Alongside the many thousands of people who have campaigned for justice for so long, I want to personally thank her for showing that same commitment with respect to the contaminated blood tragedy.

There are still questions to be answered on the detail of an inquiry. In welcoming this announcement, we must also be mindful of those who will never see its results: the more than 2,400 people who have tragically lost their lives. Many never even knew of the true scale of the scandal that was impacting on them. Those infected, and their families, will be waiting anxiously to know that the Prime Minister’s announcement will truly give them the justice they have so long been denied. But today the Prime Minister has earned a place in history as someone who has listened to an issue that her predecessors had ignored, and put party politics aside in the name of giving people the answers that are their basic right. For that, she has my gratitude.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dunne]

I shall make a little progress, then endeavour to answer that.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers at the Department of Health will meet those affected and their families so that we can discuss the issues and understand their preferences directly about the style, scope and duration of the inquiry.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for what the Minister is saying, but can he give a time estimate of when the meetings will take place? My experience of the Department of Health is that, on this issue, deadlines are not met and things have to be dragged on to the Floor of the House to get Ministers to respond. Is there a set timetable for when a decision will be made and those meetings held?

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Lady, who has taken an active lead in encouraging inquiries, will want to make sure that we get it right. We will take the time that is necessary to consult colleagues and interested groups. Our intention is to be able to come back to the House as soon as practicable—I anticipate in the autumn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

It is delightful to see you in your new place in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on her maiden speech. That was an excellent start, and I am sure she will have a very long career in the House of Commons.

We have heard some really important and excellent contributions. I think we were all moved by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) when she talked about Colin Smith—a little boy who received contaminated blood products when he was quite tiny, and who eventually died of AIDS and hepatitis C. That reminded us all that this is about boys and girls, husbands and wives, and brothers and sisters who have been affected by this scandal.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that these blood products should have been withdrawn as soon as the risks involved in their use became clear?

[Diana Johnson]

That is a good point, and I hope the inquiry will be able to get to grips with it.

I am really pleased we have had this announcement today from the Government, but I gently say to the Minister that we will not be going away on this: parliamentarians on both sides of the House will be following carefully how the consultation takes place and who is consulted, and making sure that there is a good, timely timetable, that there is legal support for those who need help with representation, and that there are regular updates to Parliament.

I want to finish with a quote from a person who has just emailed me and says that this is

“just the end of the beginning and still a long way to go before truth, justice and holding to account are achieved”.

We will now be watching very carefully what the Government do next.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the need for an independent public inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.

Adult Social Care Funding

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

Yes. This is no different from the conversation that we are having about the funding of every other public service. It is very easy to take to the streets with placards saying “Spend more!” Indeed, I think the Leader of the Opposition spent the national debt several times over just in his response to the Queen’s Speech. This is why we need a proper debate and a consultation on long-term funding. Ultimately, it could come out of general taxation, but we have to have a debate as a country on how much we can afford to do while funding all the other public services. I have not noticed us being short of requests to increase funding in other areas as well. We have to have that honest debate as a country.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

If we are going to have that honest debate, the Minister, whom I welcome to his place, has to accept that the decisions of his Government have fuelled the social care crisis. My council, the third most deprived in the country, has had the 17th highest cuts to its budget, including having £40 million taken out of social care by 2020. The social care precept that the Minister has introduced does not raise the amount of money in my area that it could in wealthier areas. Will he please accept some political responsibility for the mess we are in?

[Steve Brine]

Of course Governments of all colours have delivered us to the place where we are at this very moment, but have this Government put more money into the social care system? Yes. Did we provide more money in the Budget this year? Yes. Are we allowing councils to raise more money? Yes. As I said earlier, we spend more on long-term care as a share of GDP than other industrialised countries, including Germany and Canada and the massive economy of the United States.