Tom Hayes

“On behalf of constituents that I am proud to represent, I want to ask the Paymaster General questions of justice. I want to ask whether the infected blood compensation scheme is delivering the justice that Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry promised everyone who has suffered one of the greatest scandals in our nation’s history. First, however, I want to thank the Minister for our discussions about this topic, most recently just a couple of hours ago. I have raised it on the Floor of the House before, and I will keep raising it on behalf of my constituents. Tonight, I want to represent one family in particular, but although I am raising the experience of one family from my constituency, that experience is identical to that of many other families up and down the country. Jane Yvonne Fitzgerald was infected with contaminated blood following the administration of a single unit of blood during a non-emergency procedure. She did not consent to the risks to which she was exposed, and according to the inquiry, many patients like her should never have had such transfusions in the first place. She endured decades of illness, repeated hospital admissions, invasive procedures, severe psychological trauma and profound threats to her sense of dignity. Her experiences of care fell short of expectations. On one occasion, she suffered litres of fluid being drained from her abdomen in what was effectively a hospital broom cupboard. On another occasion, she was sent home despite being in excruciating pain because no bed was made available. On that same day, her abdomen ruptured. When she sought support, she was told there was nothing physically wrong with her. The only psychological support she was offered was alongside alcohol and drug dependency groups, when she had no addiction. The state failed to protect her and failed to care for her mental and physical health. Since she died 10 years ago, Yvonne’s family feel that justice has evaded them. Under the current compensation scheme, because she died before surviving long enough to make a claim under today’s framework, her compensation is deemed by her family to be around £300,000 less than for someone in otherwise similar circumstances who remains alive today. In her family’s view, the scheme creates a perverse outcome whereby dying from infected blood can result in less compensation than surviving with it. The younger someone was when they died, and the earlier they died, the greater the financial penalty imposed upon their family. In some cases, I am told that the disparity between deceased victims and survivors can approach £1 million. Will the Minister explain to my constituents why that is? The technical expert group recognised that severe psychological harm and exceptional suffering could be evidenced through historical records and expert opinion, yet many deceased victims cannot access enhanced awards because they died before modern assessment mechanisms existed. The inquiry recognised that affected family members suffered direct and profound harms and recommended a supplementary compensation route, yet that recommendation has still not been implemented. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Paymaster General why the recommendation of the Infected Blood Psychological Service that affected individuals should receive individual assessments not yet been adopted. The current approach also produces unfair outcomes. My constituent Ruairí Fitzgerald moved back into his parents’ home to help save it when his father was considered too old to obtain a mortgage. He gave up his own first-time buyer status and put his own future on hold to care for Yvonne, his mother. He cooked, cleaned and accompanied her to countless appointments, witnessing at first hand the effects of her poor health. His mother died before she could see him marry, she never met his two children—her two grandsons—and he is living life in that knowledge. Under the current scheme, he is entitled to substantially less compensation than estranged relatives who played little or no role in her life or care. He wonders why the scheme compensates people according to broad family categories rather than recognising the harm individuals have experienced. There are further concerns. Widows’ support payments made under the previous schemes are now deducted from compensation awards for many claimants, while those who settled earlier are unaffected. Compensation is not routinely uprated for inflation, meaning delay steadily erodes its real value. The issue raised in my constituency is how compensation delayed should not become compensation diminished. As we have heard from all hon. Members who have contributed, this debate is about trying to remedy what went wrong and trying to ensure that there is justice. Justice cannot depend upon whether someone survived long enough to satisfy an administrative process. Justice cannot depend upon the year someone died. Jane Fitzgerald endured years of suffering caused by failures of the state, before losing her life, and her family believe that the current scheme treats her life as though it were worth less because she died before the compensation framework caught up with the truth. In closing, I put the following questions to the Minister. Will the Government review the disparity between awards for deceased victims and survivors? Will they establish a route for recognising severe harms suffered by deceased victims through historical evidence? Will they implement the inquiry’s recommendation for a supplementary route for affected family members, including individual assessments where appropriate? Will they end the deduction of widows’ support payments and ensure that compensation keeps pace with inflation so that delay does not diminish justice? For Jane Yvonne Fitzgerald, for her whole family, and for every family whose loved one was taken from them, this debate and the proceedings in this House offer us an opportunity to ensure that a promise is honoured—a promise that justice is given to all.”