Clive Efford
MP for Eltham and Chislehurst · Labour · United Kingdom
“Thank you for allowing me to take part in this statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that I was not here at the beginning—I was carrying out my duties elsewhere in the House. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. What is she likely to do in my part of south-east London for technical and vocational places?”
“I rise to speak to amendment 97 in my name, which would remove clause 10 from the Bill. Clause 10 gives powers to the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of public and private provision of health services if they consider that to do so is in the interests of the health service.”
“Labour’s 2024 plan to make work pay set out a welcome desire to bring more essential services back into public control—something that is welcomed by health workers across the country, because so far the “biggest wave of insourcing in a generation”, as was promised, has felt more like a trickle when it comes to the NHS.”
“The explanatory notes for the Bill say that this new flexibility is necessary “where there may otherwise be a breakdown in provision of a health service.” Can we imagine a situation where the Secretary of State has concerns about a health service and that an approach to assist a local provider would be rebuffed?”
“There are ample powers to enable the Secretary of State to intervene and resolve breakdowns in the provision of a health service. On clause 10, we must balance what it adds in those situations against its potential misuse by an ideologically driven Government that are determined to privatise our NHS.”
“It was a pleasure to join my right hon. Friend at Greenwich council’s development of 435 council properties in my constituency for the launch of the social and affordable housing programme. Some 70,000 homes are planned, and that is welcome and overdue.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,378 lines we hold for Clive Efford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 68.
“Thank you for allowing me to take part in this statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that I was not here at the beginning—I was carrying out my duties elsewhere in the House. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. What is she likely to do in my part of south-east London for technical and vocational places? I remind her that there is a former education college site in my constituency that is in the ownership of the Education Department, which could be readymade for creating such places. Will she meet me to discuss the future of that site?”
“There are ample powers to enable the Secretary of State to intervene and resolve breakdowns in the provision of a health service. On clause 10, we must balance what it adds in those situations against its potential misuse by an ideologically driven Government that are determined to privatise our NHS. To remove any ambiguity and to protect the NHS from the possibility of the clause being abused by a future Secretary of State, I urge that it is dropped from the Bill.”
“Labour’s 2024 plan to make work pay set out a welcome desire to bring more essential services back into public control—something that is welcomed by health workers across the country, because so far the “biggest wave of insourcing in a generation”, as was promised, has felt more like a trickle when it comes to the NHS. The new Prime Minister and new Secretary of State have inherited the Health Bill from their predecessors, so hopefully they will be able to stamp their own mark on it before it becomes law. Removing clause 10 would be one way of making that mark. The concern for those who work for the NHS and those who support it is that the clause has the potential to be exploited in future by those who would seek to move away from the public provision of healthcare.”
“The explanatory notes for the Bill say that this new flexibility is necessary “where there may otherwise be a breakdown in provision of a health service.” Can we imagine a situation where the Secretary of State has concerns about a health service and that an approach to assist a local provider would be rebuffed? It is hardly likely to happen. The explanatory notes suggest that, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State needs the power to direct local decisions, rather than to work with local health service providers to resolve any difficulties. How does the power to influence the proportion of public and private provision help in resolving a breakdown in service?”
“I rise to speak to amendment 97 in my name, which would remove clause 10 from the Bill. Clause 10 gives powers to the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of public and private provision of health services if they consider that to do so is in the interests of the health service. In evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee, the chief executive of the Nuffield Trust said that clause 10 “seems to make it more possible for the Secretary of State to explicitly set out to increase private or public provision.” Why does the Secretary of State need this power? Introducing an extra level of nuance now, as clause 10 will do, has the potential to raise fears within the NHS that it could be abused in future. The clause has the potential to create unintended consequences.”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his post, but I must say to him that not all the rewiring of the new Government is welcome. I understand that the Cabinet Office intends to move responsibility for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to a Minister in the Lords. We all have constituents who are raising serious concerns about that process, and we want to be able to come to this House and hold to account the Minister responsible for that agency. I urge my right hon. Friend to take the matter up with the Cabinet Office—and, if the Government do intend to make that change, can we have a statement?”
“It was a pleasure to join my right hon. Friend at Greenwich council’s development of 435 council properties in my constituency for the launch of the social and affordable housing programme. Some 70,000 homes are planned, and that is welcome and overdue. However, my constituency and ones like it have a lot of sports grounds, and as we push for more land, the temptation is for owners of those grounds to lock the gates, in the hope that they will make a windfall from developing those sites. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that that will not be allowed under the programme to build the housing that we need?”
“Do the Minister and the Government agree with the principle that an independent body should oversee the Government’s performance in responding to inquiry recommendations? Is that the way we are going to go forwards? The way that the Government—not just this one, but others in the past—have responded to recommendations from inquiries has, to say the least, required improvement for a very long time. Can we be assured that independence will be introduced into the scrutiny process?”
“In 2025, he reconvened that inquiry, took further evidence and gave further recommendations because of the tardy way in which the Government were responding to his recommendations. We cannot be in that position again, and we cannot rely on the Sir Brian Langstaffs of this world to be that guarded and to protect our rights in that way every time. We must have a body that is independent of Government, and that will scrutinise how they behave and how they react to the recommendations of public inquiries that we the public pay for. Finally, I would like to congratulate the Hillsborough families. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.”
“We should set up a national body for compensation to perform that task, to ensure that we keep in place the knowledge and expertise that has been learned and do not lose it. Secondly, we need a national body for oversight of the recommendations of inquiries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has set out in his new clauses 5 and 6, which I fully support. We have had over 400 recommendations from inquiries since 2024, but who has oversight of those recommendations and how the Government are responding to them? Sir Brian Langstaff, who chaired the contaminated blood inquiry, reported in July 2024, but he deliberately kept his inquiry open because he wanted to see how the Government reacted to his recommendations.”
“It just shows the scale and depth of the cruelty that people have had to endure in that scandal and others. It is one of the most powerful testaments that I have come across, and it shows why we need to fight for justice in this place for the people who suffered in all the scandals that we have spoken about. I will discuss two issues. First, I see the duty of candour as part of a framework that we need to put in place, and we must have a national compensation body. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority, the independent body for the contaminated blood scandal, is a unique body that has been set up to pay out compensation. It is learning a lot about how to go through this process, and it would be wrong to have to relearn the process all over again with every subsequent scandal where compensation is paid out.”
“The cover-up, and the opposition to the campaigns for justice, tells us that we can never drop our guard in holding people and the state to account, so I really welcome the fact that we will pass this Bill today. I could stand here and read out many examples of the way that individuals were treated by the state in the contaminated blood scandal, but one particularly springs to mind. At the age of 18 months, a baby was experimented on, without anybody being told. The baby was infected with hepatitis, but this was not discovered until the baby became a teenager. The parent found out, and the state made her believe that she had given consent for her baby to be experimented on at the age of 18 months. That parent went on to attempt suicide.”
“Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg). I should also acknowledge Steve Rotheram, who spoke out very powerfully on behalf of the Hillsborough families, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who spoke so passionately earlier. I pay tribute to all of them, but it tells us something: in spite of the fact that some very fine Members of Parliament have been raising this issue over a very long period of time, it has taken this long to get to where we are today. That shows us how important it is that we are tenacious and stick with our campaigns, and also that we have oversight of the Government and can hold them to account, to make sure that they do not treat people in the way that they have attempted to do.”
“I decided at a very late stage to speak in this debate, because I chair the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood and I wanted to add my voice on behalf of all the people who campaigned on that scandal and express their appreciation for the work of the Hillsborough families and what they have achieved for our country. Ordinary people up and down the country will have a power to take on the state in the future and not to be crushed, as the state has attempted to do in respect of so many other scandals that have been mentioned today. I pay tribute to the MPs from the north-west—not just Liverpool—who, over the many years that I have been in this House, have campaigned consistently on this issue, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and my hon.”
“I remind Members to stand in their places if they intend to contribute. I intend to call the Front-Bench speeches at 28 minutes past, so that gives you roughly seven to eight minutes each. That is a rough guide; there is no hard limit.”
“I will call Ms Julie Minns to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
“There are still concerns among the community about the regulations before us today. The Minister knows that the regulations were laid on the day of the Backbench Business debate on 18 June. That meant there was no opportunity for Ministers to take on board the points that hon. Members were making on behalf of their constituents, who still would like to see the compensation scheme tweaked. Through his ongoing dialogue with the community, does he accept that there must be an opportunity for that tweaking to take place in response to some of those concerns?”
“My right hon. Friend and I have debated and discussed unethical testing, and we differ on this issue. I, along with those people who were the children who were deliberately infected, feel very strongly about this. It is a sobering fact that they were deliberately infected by the state that should have been there to care for them. For them, the compensation is not about the money but about the degree of recognition within this scheme of just exactly how badly treated they were. The level of payments for that should be much higher than they are. I welcome these regulations. It is important that we move on as fast as possible now that we have them in place. Again, I congratulate the Paymaster General on all the work he has done.”
“I raised all the issues that I raised in that debate, and I am also grateful that he will come back to me about those issues. I will not go through all of them again today and will instead give other hon. Members the chance to speak, but it is important that they are taken on board. My right hon. Friend referred to the pace of payments, which is important, and to the evidence. We have to take note of the fact that so many of the people infected and affected have had to campaign for 40 years or more to get to this point and to get justice. It is unlikely that they will have evidence—the payslips and all sorts of evidence—that they were living with their parents at the time when a sibling was infected. It is not possible for people to provide that depth of information so late on. We have to be considerate in the way that we approach that.”
“I pay tribute to the Paymaster General for getting us to this point. It is time to move on, but there are still concerns, as I have mentioned already. I hope that those will be taken on board as we move forwards because, as he set out, the community out there are concerned about the pace with which payments are being made, particularly now that we are into the claims from those affected. It is time for test and learn to move us on and to ensure that those payments are made as soon as possible. I urge that the ongoing dialogue, to which my right hon. Friend referred when he made his original statement in response to the inquiry report, continues and that those people’s voices are heard. I am grateful for the meeting he had with me following the Backbench Business debate.”
“I want to bring in the Front Benchers at 3.58 pm, so Members can work out for themselves that it is roughly seven minutes for each Back Bencher who is on their feet.”
“I welcome this investment in our defence. Will my right hon. Friend say just how difficult the hollowing out of our defence spending under the previous Government has made it to build the capacity to spend that money?”
“There is no escaping the fact that, had people been under an obligation to tell the truth at the outset, many lives would have been saved. We welcome the changes that the Government announced on 14 April this year, following the consultation that they held from October 2025 to January 2026. However, there remain concerns that some elements of the compensation system still require change.”
“The World Health Organisation expressed concern about the commercial supply of products from paid donors, but still the practice went on, and victims were kept in the dark. Pupils at Treloar’s school were experimented on. Between 1970 and 1987, 122 pupils with haemophilia attended the school. At the time that the evidence was given to the inquiry, only 30 remained alive. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that your constituent Gary Webster is one of those; another is my constituent Lee Moorey. I am pleased to say that he is still with us. Lee did not find out until he was 14 that he had been infected with HIV. He was in his 30s when he found out that he had been infected with hepatitis C, and he found out that he has hepatitis B only last year.”
“In the USA, the production of blood products farmed from volunteers and prisoners took off after the USA deregulated harvesting blood products. Pooling products from different people meant that entire supplies became infected. As early as 1975, “World in Action” exposed the dangers of these products. In 1983, Government experts knew of the risks of contaminated blood products. Costs meant that heat treatment to clean the products was not introduced. In 1989, the then Government were advised to provide victims with compensation on humanitarian grounds. The Government rejected that advice on financial grounds. The Government continued to withhold information from the infected and their families. Had they been told, they could have sought medical help, and many would have avoided tragedy.”
“I know that he takes the matter to heart, and it would be understandable if he felt slightly harshly treated, given that he has secured £9.8 billion for the compensation process, but I am sure he understands that because the community of the infected and affected have had to fight so hard for so long, and have lost many friends and relatives along the way in the face of huge opposition, they are not ready to praise anyone—not until everyone has received justice. In his address during the service of remembrance and reflection at St Paul’s, Sir Brian Langstaff said that this catastrophe was no accident. It has been called the deadliest man-made disaster in post-war history. In the ’70s and ’80s, people knowingly gave infected products to unsuspecting patients.”
“The Government are about to lay another set of orders before Parliament, and the community and campaigners have demanded that we make representations on their behalf before they are laid, so I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for moving us up the list and granting us this debate in such short time. I congratulate the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office for securing the funds to get the compensation process under way.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme. At the outset, I would like to bear witness to those who have fought for justice for so long, and who have given evidence to the inquiry. I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). I am aware that many Members who would like to be here are in Makerfield for the by-election, so I may ask for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have a lot to cover, because a lot of people are missing.”
“The compensation scheme cannot continue to ignore the real-life effect on victims of long-term interferon treatment, and the associated costs, which are far higher than the time-limited uplifts that the Government propose introducing. Treatment for interferon is not recognised when it comes to additional injury awards. Those awards must be paid to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other harms they may have suffered. Then there is the situation with hepatitis B. Why are people infected with hepatitis B not given equal treatment in the compensation packages with those infected with hepatitis C?”
“We have set the price low enough that you can carry out experiments on anyone, and then pay the fine and still make money.” What these people have lost is priceless, and £60,000 is nowhere near enough. The issue is not just the size of the compensation, but the gravity of what took place and its immorality. That has to be addressed, and these payments go nowhere near doing so. They should be withdrawn to allow a proper dialogue to take place with the infected and affected, so that an appropriate solution can be reached. We must recognise the losses that these people have endured since childhood. Some recognition has to be given in the new regulations to the impact of interferon treatment for those infected with hepatitis. The changes are time-limited to two years for financial loss, and one year for the care award.”
“But we should stop to consider for a moment what this compensation is for. These children, without their knowledge, were given contaminated products so that the effects could be studied by the state—the state that should have been there to protect them. Imagine being one of the victims and reflecting on what the state has done to you, knowing that your life has been altered and shortened, and that you have lost friends. I spoke to one parent who described looking at her three children and knowing that she would never see them grow up to be adults or get married, and never see her grandchildren. The top price for that is £60,000. The message was, “If you are a pharmaceutical company, come to Britain.”
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we do need a timescale. I will cover that later. There are concerns that elements of the compensation system still require change, and that some of the decision making is arbitrary and not consistent with what had been promised. I will attempt to go through those concerns. Unethical testing is the most disturbing and distressing aspect of this horrible affair. People—most of them children at the time—were used as human lab rats. Former Treloar’s pupils have described themselves as “cheaper than chimps” for experimenting on. The Government have increased the payment for those who attended Treloar’s school from £25,000 to £60,000, which is a welcome step in the right direction, and for those who were experimented on as children elsewhere from £25,000 to £45,000.”
“I have not had conversations with the Government about an approach like that, but I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I will address that later. The Government need to learn lessons, and to set up a system, so that we do not have to learn all over again all the lessons of paying compensation and implementing inquiries’ recommendations every time this happens.”
“There is a growing concern among the community about the pace of payments. After an upturn towards the end of last year, things have slowed down. There seems to be an upturn in IBCA’s demand for documentation, despite it being agreed previously that that would not be required from claimants. After so many years, some documents are impossible to find and such requests will slow down the system. In some cases, people have been asked to provide proof that they were living with their parents as children at the time of their claim. Will the Government instruct IBCA to alter its current stance on that requirement? The people infected and affected have been campaigning for decades, and many are very elderly. Does the Minister agree that it is time that we set timelines to end the limbo that they have been left in?”
“(I personally gave up work to look after my husband, giving up my teaching career. I tried to return after he died as my son was a minor and after two terms had a breakdown in the classroom in front of the children. I never worked again.) Loss of earnings should be taken into account.” She continued: “Other considerations that should be taken into account—being unable to have a child or more children, loss of a proper marriage (we were told that if my husband infected me he could be put in prison), harassment at home and work (we had to move twice, once with the help of the police) to living in poor housing due to not being able to get insurance for a mortgage. Regards, Mary Grindley”. When we read testimonies such as Mary’s they bring home the multitude of wrongs that must be recognised.”
“The current scheme has not enabled family members who gave up work to be compensated for the sacrifices they made in their lives and the opportunities that they lost as a result. The supplementary compensation scheme should enable carers to claim the actual financial and personal losses that they have suffered as a result of providing care. My constituent Mary Grindley wrote to me on that issue: “I understand that the Cabinet Office is considering a supplementary route to further compensation for the affected on top of the lump sum at present offered. While considering this, please bear in mind many of us gave up our jobs and careers to look after our beloved ones often with little support. Also many had difficulty returning to work later or were too traumatised to do so.”
“Lady just referred to, the Government did not accept the inquiry’s recommendation for IBCA to be less stringent on overall evidence for the psychological harm award, and instead advised that people apply to the special category mechanism award. There is concern that the evidence threshold will be too high, and the Government should allow IBCA to be more flexible and compassionate in considering claims of psychological harm through the special category mechanism. The communities consistently pointed out that the current scheme penalises those who died before the compensation scheme came into force. The Paymaster General did not address that issue in his statement earlier this year. The compensation scheme must pay the estates of those who died young for the harm and losses suffered, and end such a clear injustice.”
“I will touch on that and I will make that very point. There are areas of evidence required that are unreasonable. I thought we had agreed that that sort of evidence would not be asked for. In his statement on 14 April, the Paymaster General announced, for all those claimants who can demonstrate to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority that they meet the criteria, that all care and financial loss claims can be backdated to 2017, when the special category mechanism was first established. The community of people I have spoken to feels strongly that compensation must cover actual costs, whenever they occurred, and that there should not be an arbitrary cut-off date of 2017. On the issue of evidence, which the hon.”
“Yes, where we can improve the system by working together, I think we should do it. That is absolutely right. We welcome the introduction of an ongoing dialogue between the infected and affected community and the Government. That was lacking throughout the process, from when the Government started to set the tariffs and set up IBCA, and that led to a lot of mistrust. A two- way dialogue is needed if good relationships and trust are to be maintained and if we are to restore trust in the process. We must learn the lessons of all inquiries and compensation bodies that the Government have had to set up. We must not keep reinventing the wheel every time an inquiry reports and makes recommendations.”
“Yes, I agree. We keep repeating the experience with inquiry after inquiry. The time has come for us to set up a body that retains that experience so that it can represent the people who have been wronged and ensure that the issues that have been raised by them, through whatever inquiry has taken place, can be addressed.”
“668.] In the conclusion to his oration, Sir Brian said: “Putting into practice these principles—prioritising patients’ safety, embracing candour, transparency and involvement, recognising and remedying injustice, truly valuing people—is a challenge for the here and now. These principles need to be not just matters of words, but together provide a practical route map to follow.” Had we been following Sir Brian’s advice, we would have got to the truth much earlier, saved lives and perhaps avoided other catastrophes. As we go forward, we must heed his words, involve people, value them, listen to them and act.”
“He said that the catastrophe was no accident, and quoted the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who said on the publication of the final report in 2024: “We must fundamentally rebalance the system so that we finally address the pattern of injustice, so familiar from other inquiries, such as Hillsborough, where innocent victims have to fight for decades just to be believed.” —[ Official Report , 20 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 666.] In response, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, said that “we must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice.” —[ Official Report , 20 May 2025; Vol. 750, c.”
“It would be an improvement if we were to set up a system that reviewed what action is taken in response to inquiries. For instance, if we had acted on the recommendations of the inquiry into the Lakanal House fire, we might not have had the Grenfell fire. Those things are just left to gather dust on a shelf, and we need to address that. We must set up a body for compensation payments so that skills and experience are not lost and do not have to be learned time and again. We must also have a duty of candour; the Hillsborough law must be introduced in its entirety. One person whom I know the campaigners, the infected and the affected would like to thank, overall, is Sir Brian Langstaff. I will finish with his address at the remembrance service at St Paul’s.”
“I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend to move things forward. When he receives representations from the infected and affected community, how does he intend to put those into effect and change the compensation process? That is what they approach us about and we are all raising a number of those representations, asking for changes in the regulations he is about to lay before the House.”
“I will not detain the House for long. I just want to thank everyone who contributed to the debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his thoughtful consideration of all the points raised. I just have one request: could I meet with him before he lays the regulations, so that we can discuss some of the issues raised today? I thank again everyone who contributed to the debate. I hope we have done justice to the people who are concerned about this issue, and to the infected and the affected who are watching the proceedings today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme.”
“It is clear that the sociopaths that run these platforms have no concern whatever for the welfare of anyone, but particularly our children, and that they will listen only if legislation is put before this House that makes them act and sends a clear message to them, so when are we going to do that?”
“Parents from my constituency who went to the south coast during the half-term week described how they would not let their children swim in the sea. These are not necessarily beaches that are deemed to be unsafe, but such is the loss of confidence in our water industry that they reacted in that way. There must come a time when we say that we cannot allow water companies to continue to perform in the way that they have consistently been performing, and there must be a way of separating off the debt from the responsibility for running the water companies so that we can take the responsibility of supplying water and leave those companies, who have done extremely well out of the industry, to pay off their own debts.”
“I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer to the urgent question. Does she agree that those of us who are children of people who went through the second world war are now the closest to remembering that we cannot appease dictators in Europe? We know what that leads to. With that in mind, is this not the time, after such a long period of war, to press home on sanctions and restrictions on Russia, which is finding it very difficult to sustain its war effort? We must step up our efforts in that regard.”
“Will the Leader of the House—and, through him, the whole House—join me in congratulating Blackheath rugby club on its victory in the championship accession final? That puts it in the second tier of the domestic league for rugby. This is an amazing achievement for Blackheath rugby. It is the oldest rugby club in the world—so old that it is just known as “Club”. In celebrating the achievement of Blackheath rugby club, can we have a debate on sports clubs in our constituencies, so that the whole House has the opportunity to celebrate Blackheath’s achievement, and so that others can talk about the contribution that clubs make in their constituency?”
“Absolutely, Mr Speaker: my question is about South East Water, because what we have here is a company that fell over at the first short period of hot weather. We have to wonder what planning has gone on in that company, given that it fell over so quickly in the season. When are we going to call time on these water companies? The consistent failure that we see from them, while they extract enormous profits from the industry, has to come to an end at some stage. I know that my hon. Friend is as frustrated with these water companies as the rest of us, but there must come a time when we say to them, “Enough is enough”, and take control of them for the public good.”