Government and campaigners at odds over future of contaminated blood inquiry
Jasper Thompson - Political Consultant
| Dods Monitoring
Dods Political Consultant, Jasper Thompson, highlights the growing concerns of victims and campaign groups over Government proposals for an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.
In his final address to the House, Andy Burnham issued the government an ultimatum: launch an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal or he would refer them, and his dossier of evidence, to the police. In doing so, Burnham had captured a growing consensus within Westminster. The South Yorkshire police had had their day in court for the Hillsborough disaster now so too must those responsible for infecting roughly 7,500 people with HIV and Hepatitis C in the 1970s and 80s.
Just three months later, against the background of a greatly weakened Government, Burnham got his wish. Long term Westminster advocate for those affected, Diana Johnson MP was granted an emergency debate on the scandal, and hours later the Prime Minister announced an inquiry into “an appalling tragedy which should simply never have happened”. But just weeks after the announcement, the Government, and the inquiry itself, are facing strong opposition from campaign groups.
The first and most pressing issue is the Department of Health’s involvement in establishing the inquiry. Immediately after the department began to consult on the inquiry they were faced with near unanimous opposition to their involvement, with leaders of 10 key advocacy groups submitting a statement of opposition. While it may be standard practise for the relevant department to establish and lead on such an inquiry, it is argued this specific inquiry, which will focus so heavily on the failings and supposed misconduct by the department, is unique. Indeed, Johnson, who chairs the APPG on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood, likened such a scenario to the South Yorkshire police leading the inquiry in to Hillsborough.
In a coordinated response, the Haemophilia society, which has campaigned for a public inquiry in to the scandal since 1988, joined other groups in “universally rejecting” any engagement with the Department of Health based on their involvement in the scandal.
The initial meeting held by the department was boycotted by campaigning groups, and without the engagement of the key stakeholders, the Government faces the embarrassing prospect of holding an inquiry run by the accused party, in which no victims contribute. Responding to an urgent question on the matter, newly appointed health minister Jackie Doyle-Price was quick to stress that no firm decision had been made on which department would run the inquiry. Despite this, given the level of pressure being exerted and the number of caveats given by Doyle-Price during the debate, it seems increasingly likely that all responsibility will be removed from the Department of Health and handed over to either the Cabinet Office or the Ministry of Justice.
The second issue troubling campaigners is the nature of the inquiry. While they may be unified in their opposition to the Department of Health’s involvement, they are somewhat divided on what form the consultation should take.
Many of the groups’ members are keen for a Hillsborough style panel investigation, in a process managed by the victims of the scandal. This is the position supported by the six opposition leaders in the House, as expressed in a signed letter on 7th July 2017.
However, others such as the Haemophilia Society are less sold on an independent panel and feel there is a need for a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. They point to failings in the independent Archer Inquiry, a previous investigation into the scandal, as justification for a statutory inquiry. The key difference between an independent inquiry and a statutory inquiry is that an independent inquiry does not have the power to compel people to give evidence or produce papers, a factor that many feel limited the 2009 Archer Inquiry in to the scandal. Indeed, the Archer Independent Inquiry itself stated that the “Department of Health maintained its view that the Inquiry was unnecessary, and declined to provide witnesses to give evidence in public”; it is feared that the Department of Health’s involvement in deciding the scope of the inquiry could lead to a similar scenario. Hinting at a more far reaching inquiry and, in an effort to assuage these fears, the Department of Health has conceded that previous inquiries into the scandal “did not go far enough”.
On the 24th July, the Haemophilia Society increased their pressure on the Department of Health by urging members not to respond to their letters consulting on the inquiry and instead remain steadfast and await “alternative arrangements”. In an effort to break the deadlock, the Right Reverend James Jones KBE, the former bishop of Liverpool who chaired the Hillsborough panel was brought in to mediate the situation. The Right Rev hosted a telephone conference call with representatives from campaign groups in attempt to kick start some dialogue.
With recess upon us, the media seem desperate for stories and as this continues to unfold, it may well pique their interest. For now the stalemate remains, the likes of Tainted Blood, The Forgotten Few and the Haemophilia Society show no signs of backing down and with the Department of Health already sounding on the backfoot, we may well be in for a concession in the coming weeks.
Dods Monitoring is Europe’s leading provider of tailored political intelligence. Find out more by visiting the Dods website.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
