Sir Edward Leigh
MP for Gainsborough · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Those of us who love the Jewish people and faith know that the reason why they have overcome all the empires that have tried to destroy them is that they are primarily people of the book and not the sword, but what is happening in the west bank is violent and egregious.”
“I am grateful to the Secretary of State for looking again at Lincolnshire. I made the point to her predecessor that the proposal for a Greater Lincolnshire authority was, in the eyes of many people, just a gerrymander. Will she look again at it and stop dividing West Lindsey and North Kesteven in half?”
“If the centre does not take action, nasty extremes will take over. The fact is that we are in acute danger. These people can now launch from anywhere on the north French coast and are escorted to our shores. Frankly, we are being invaded, and the public are completely fed up.”
“May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he said about Ukraine and on how he conducted himself there? Our enemies should know that this House is completely and utterly united in standing behind the Ukrainian people.”
“What concerns me is the jobs of my constituents who work at Scunthorpe. That is all I am worried about; I have no ideological objection. If it is what is needed now, fair enough. As long as the blast furnaces are totally uneconomic because of high energy costs, however, it can only be a sticking plaster.”
“One of the poorest wards in the entire country is Gainsborough south-west ward. Why is the Secretary of State splitting West Lindsey in half? Why is he taking Scampton away from Gainsborough? It makes no sense. Why is he cutting away the nuclear fusion site from Lincoln?”
The complete record
Every one of 6,092 lines we hold for Sir Edward Leigh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 65 of 122.
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have done a bit of research, and have established that the first Speaker was Sir Thomas Hungerford, who took his place in your Chair in 1377. I am afraid that means that you are only 638 years old, Mr Speaker, although it does not feel like that to those of us who sit under your speakership. It also means that in 12 years we shall have another happy anniversary, and we all wish you well for that, too.”
“They have integrated so well, and they are an object lesson to all immigrant communities. Although my hon. Friend has talked about a particularly horrible incident, I do not personally believe there is much anti-Semitism in this country; there certainly should not be. We are a tolerant nation and we welcome our Jewish brothers and sisters; we welcome them for the contribution that they make. However, this debate is an opportunity to say that we shall never forget what happened to them in the past, and in never forgetting, we hope that we can stop it from happening again.”
“It is also important for us to proclaim that because this great and appalling act of murder was committed against the Jewish people, they have the absolute right to live in peace, freedom and security wherever they are in the world. Because they, almost uniquely, were subjected to this appalling act of genocide and torture, they deserve our special protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North spoke most movingly about the Jewish people who have settled in this country. We should proclaim loudly in this Parliament, on the day of our 750th anniversary, how much we value the contribution of Jewish people to our nation. This is a people who came here and sought shelter, often from pogroms at the end of the 19th century —although, as my hon. Friend said, some have been here for centuries—and they have given so much to our country.”
“It is there. Germany was the most advanced nation in Europe, with an extraordinarily successful economy, and we still do not understand why Jewish people—who were largely integrated, were a tiny proportion of the population, were making a wonderful contribution to Germany and had fought patriotically in exactly the same proportion as everybody else in Germany for their nation in the first world war—were treated like that. It is something in human nature, and it is here now. Only last year, we had a debate on Srebrenica, which happened not 70 years ago, but in our time. Boys and men—hundreds of them—were carried out of a village and shot simply because they were Muslim. It is here now, and we have to recognise it in all of us and root it out; that is why this debate is so important.”
“He had not been the commandant of a camp or anything like that—he had fought in Germany and Russia and all the rest of it; there was nothing remarkable about him. However, when he was being interviewed, there was a gap in his war, so the American officer interviewing him asked, “What were you doing in that gap?” The German officer could have given any answer; he was being interviewed with thousands of other people. He said, “I was just working for the Einsatzgruppen.” The interviewing officer knew what they were doing. He said, “What were you doing for those nine months working for the Einsatzgruppen in Poland?”, and he replied, “I was killing Jews.” The officer said, “Well, how many did you kill?” He said, “Oh, about 90,000.” This was just a normal person, a German officer, and somehow he had been infected with this appalling evil.”
“It is important that we have this debate to try to recognise what in human nature creates these appalling events. It is still here; there is some of it in all of us. Unless we recognise that, we are doomed to repeat history. Solzhenitsyn said in “The Gulag Archipelago”: “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” That sort of hatred, somehow and inexplicably, rests in human beings. After the war, a German officer, who had had a normal war and done nothing very remarkable, was being interrogated. He was in the pen with thousands of other people.”
“It is an honour to follow my friend and Jewish brother, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), who made the most moving comments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who spoke about the moving life story of his own family. I know that Holocaust memorial day is next Tuesday, but it is appropriate that this Parliament should be talking about this issue today. On 20 January 1275, on the other side of the street, in the Westminster chapter house—one can see it through the windows—our first Parliament was founded. That is what the British people are about. Where does the word “Parliament” come from? It comes from the French word “parler”—to talk together and understand each other, and to understand our differences and try to sort them out.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, we had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall on Holocaust memorial day. I thought that it would be appropriate, as we celebrate our 750th birthday today, for this House—I recognise that you are the head of our House, Mr Speaker, and you are of Jewish ancestry—to proclaim that, even if our House survives for another 750 years, we will not, in this, our time, be found wanting in standing up for the right of Jewish people to live in peace and freedom wherever they are in the world.”
“Just in case the Minister is coming to the end of his remarks, may I refer him back to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell)? Tomorrow, in the chapter house of Westminster, 100 yards away, we will be celebrating the 750th anniversary of our first Parliament. Back then, of course, every bishop would have been Catholic. I and my hon. Friend are not asking for a statement today. Bearing in mind the fact that women priests unfortunately make union between our two Churches less likely, we simply ask that the Government have an open mind about allowing bishops of other denominations to enter the House of Lords.”
“Presumably the Opposition are also open-minded about representatives of other religions and denominations being Members of the House of Lords.”
“I am very disappointed that my right hon. Friend did not read all that out in Latin. I am sure that you would have been happy to let him do so, Mr Speaker. Earlier, in an excellent intervention, my right hon. Friend said, quite rightly, that the established Church represented all our churches. I am a warm supporter of the Church of England and its establishment nature, but—I mentioned this earlier—presumably it has no principled objection to the representation of bishops from other denominations, or leaders of other faiths, in the House of Lords.”
“We do not want to become involved in too theological an argument. My right hon. Friend is of course entirely right, but the Catholic Church has absolutely no objection to the appointment to the other place of lay people who can represent the Church. Believe me, I am not trying to talk myself into a job; I am merely making a point.”
“Meanwhile, we wish the Anglican bishops in the other place well and look forward to a woman taking her rightful place there for the first time in history.”
“I sat on a senior committee that discussed what our attitude in the Catholic Church should be towards one of our bishops being invited to join the House of Lords. I believe that the late Cardinal Hume was invited to join the House of Lords. Indeed, the Queen referred to him once as, “My cardinal,” which was quite touching. As the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has made clear, there are difficulties in canon law relating to bishops of the Catholic Church taking their place in the legislature. Be that as it may, I am sure a way forward can be found to have representatives of the Catholic Church and more representatives of the Methodists and of other faiths. As we discuss those things, I very much hope that we will keep an open mind on the issue.”
“I was a tiny bit disappointed that when I put the same question to the Minister, he did not choose to answer it. I would have thought that it would be perfectly possible for the Government to announce that they are open minded about any reform. The reason I say that is that, while I fully support the fact that there are 26 Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords—they are all Anglican and I have no difficulty with that—I do not want people to say that, because there are already 26 religious people there, there is no room for representatives of any other denominations or faiths. We have heard that there is already a Methodist priest in the other place, and we have heard the reasons for there being no Catholic bishops. [Hon. Members: “And the Chief Rabbi.”] There is also the Chief Rabbi.”
“I am not going to make any comment on whether having women priests in the Anglican Church is right or wrong; I am just stating a fact that, sadly, we seem to have reached an impasse, but we are where we are. I say that because, very sadly, that will be a situation where we will remain divided for many years. I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and which I have already made in a couple of interventions. I hope that Members on both Front Benches will keep a very open mind when it comes to reform of the other place. Other denominations—other faiths—need to take their place in the House of Lords. I was delighted with the response of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), when I intervened on him.”
“I think the two Churches can come to some sort of unity of view that it is some sort of spiritual change in the person, so tremendous progress is being made on that. Tremendous progress is also being made on the nature of the supremacy of the see of Peter: all Christian denominations can, while maintaining their own supremacy in their own dioceses—as does the Orthodox Church—view the primacy of the see of Peter. Sadly, however, there is one block. I am sorry to mention it, but what appears to be an insuperable block for many years is the fact that we now have women priests in the Anglican Church. This is a difficulty for the Orthodox denominations in the east and the Catholic denomination in the west.”
“I am a warm supporter of the Church of England, of women bishops and of the Church of England being the established Church. A tremendous amount of work has been going on between the Catholic and Anglican Churches over the past 40 years to try to achieve union. I was speaking recently to Archbishop David Moxon—a superb representative of the Church of England in the Vatican, where he tries to take the process forward. He said to me that excellent progress is being, and has been made, in achieving that union so that we can take joint communion. It is a matter of great pain to many of us Christians that we cannot take communion together. Huge progress—quite surprising progress—has been made on issues that for centuries have proved very difficult indeed, such as transubstantiation of the nature of the real presence in the Eucharist.”
“Sadly, that means that the great county of Lincolnshire will have to wait a year or two more to get its bishop into the other place, but we are a patient lot in Lincolnshire, and our bishop, as has been mentioned, is a generous man. This debate gives me an opportunity to make another point about representation. Nothing that I say detracts from my strong support for the established Church; if we were to de-establish the Church, that would send entirely the wrong signal in an increasingly secular world. The Church of England is such a broad-minded institution—perhaps, in some people’s view, so broad minded that it is sometimes difficult to see where the bounds begin and end, although that is not really any of my business. It seeks to represent all people.”
“Tomorrow is the 750th anniversary of when barons, burgesses, bishops and abbots collected in the cathedral chapter, just 200 yards from where we are now sitting, to found our first Parliament. It is rather charming and appropriate that, the day before that anniversary, we should be celebrating a Bill that will apparently ensure the arrival of the first woman bishop in the other place. It has been quite a long wait, perhaps—750 years—although naturally, as a Conservative, I believe in organic change. The logic is that women bishops should take their position in the other place. I would have thought that the Bill was unopposable.”
“However, there are no headlines about the small kindnesses, the little acts of love and dignity, that people all around the world undertake, inspired either wholly or in part by their faith. I see no harm in councils’ proclaiming that faith before their meetings.”
“To me, it seems plainly rude and ungentlemanly, and while these terms are viewed by some in our society as old-fashioned, it is just such forms of tradition and social dignity that say we should not deliberately intend to insult someone’s religion. That is up to the individual, not the state. It is such ideas, too, that affirm that we should not go slaughtering people because they insult us and our religion. In the end, being outrageous is all too often employed by the unoriginal and uninspired as a handy substitute for talent. This is an opportunity to think more generally about the role of religion in our society and the world. What a shame, but also how natural, that religion is so often in the headlines because of warfare and conflict—we are all familiar with the so-called Islamic state.”
“In this society, we have a right to offend others. If, dare I say it, prayers before council meetings offend some people—I doubt if anyone will be very offended—I believe that it is an inherent right nevertheless and it should be exercised. It may astonish the House for a moment, but I confess that there are some aspects of political correctness that I find welcome. Political correctness to a certain extent incorporates a good old-fashioned sense of politeness. I am not a Muslim, so satirical depictions of Mohammed are ostensibly none of my business, but I do not understand the mentality that seeks intentionally to degrade and insult someone else’s most deeply held beliefs.”
“Britons will be the first gently to mock the French and some of their silly ways—and we have some silly ways— but our reaction to the recent atrocities committed in Paris has shown that we are the first to rush to their defence and express our solidarity with the French people. Chesterton was very prescient when he restated that to have a right to do something is different from being right in doing so. We believe in the freedom of speech, and while we hope that this freedom is used responsibly, we know that any attempts by the state to act as a determinant or guarantor of what is and what is not said is not a responsible exercise of freedom and is inherently threatening to our liberty. That is why I was a prominent supporter of the Reform Section 5 campaign about the right to offend other people.”
“I suspect that the overwhelming majority of British atheists are mature and respectful people, tolerant and perhaps even appreciative of the Christian foundations of the state and society. Rare is the man or woman given to sudden fits of apoplectic rage at the appearance of a nativity scene in public around Christmastide. It has been rare in our time that an event has promoted as much comment and discussion on the nature of freedom and its responsibilities as the recent tragedy in Paris. France, of course, has a unique status in British society, serving simultaneously as our favourite traditional enemy as well as our closest friend, whose culture we most enjoy, love and revel in more than that of any other country.”
“Is it any wonder that what we can fairly describe as traditionally Christian countries are the ones that are today so tolerant of those of other faiths or indeed of none? The traditionally Christian societies are the most successful economically because they are tolerant of all other beliefs. It is that tolerance that has laid our economic success. When we look at the past 50 years and observe officially atheist states such as the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China or officially Islamic republics such as Iran and Pakistan, we find their level of tolerance disappointing at best. Would someone rather be an atheist in Tehran where the mullahs rule the roost or in Beirut where the political and legal culture took root during the decades in which Lebanon had a Christian majority?”
“With their conversion to Christianity, the Anglo-Saxon kings could no longer exert an arbitrary power over the kingdoms and peoples, but were subject to and restrained by, they realised, a higher power. This worship or esteeming of God laid the foundations for His creation—man—with numerous consequent ideas flowing forth about the dignity of the individual and our freedom of conscience. After all, what value is there to worship if it is not done as an act of free will? Even more recent aspects of British society have Christian roots. Lord Alton, a former Member of this House, now in the other place, has written eloquently about the Christian foundations of the welfare state, noting that “the thoughts, words and actions of the Christian community were central to bringing” the welfare state “to fruition”.”
“Nobody is suggesting that should be compulsory; it is simply the decision of the council. Schools are still required to provide “daily collective worship wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character”. That is in our legislation. The Guardian finds that “incredible”, and it is worth noting that while we Conservatives can take credit for this requirement in passing the Education Reform Act 1988, The Guardian says that this was last reaffirmed in 1998 under new Labour—so presumably it is not that controversial. It should be recalled that the etymology of the word “worship” comes from “worth ship”, the act of attributing or recognising worth, honour, esteem or distinction.”
“One can see their images in mosaic form looking down upon us in the Central Lobby of this Palace. Even in law we have the four quarter days of the year: Lady day, the feast of the Annunciation; Midsummer, the feast of St John the Baptist; Michaelmas, the feast of the Archangel Michael; and Christmas, the great feast of the Incarnation of Our Lord, which is celebrated so widely among those of profound religious belief or of none. The reason the tax year starts on 6 April is that it is the Gregorian equivalent of Lady day in the old Julian calendar that we in Britain held out in using for so long. It is important to recall that other laws reinforce the Judaeo-Christian foundations of our society, and they should be celebrated in prayers before our meetings.”
“I would argue that this Parliament is the most beholden to tradition of any legislature in the world. Chesterton famously described tradition as “the democracy of the dead.” For when we make our decisions today, why should we not take into account the Britons of centuries past? Of course, the reality today is that the Christianity associated with the state—prayers before meetings, Remembrance day services, the role of the Church of England—is a thin whitewash over the official reigning ideology of liberalism. That is true, but these acts, be they prayer or worship, tie us intimately with our ancestors. I believe that that is what conservatism is all about. They connect us, I dare say, with the communion of Saints, four of whose number—George, Andrew, David and Patrick—serve as the traditional patrons and protectors of these nations.”
“Doubtless, opponents of Christian prayer can cite actual cases where offence has been taken by someone, but I suspect it is pretty rare. We are supposed to be mature adults. I believe that anyone who is grievously offended by the Christian nature of prayers in councils needs to have some regard to the roots of our country. I am sure that both sides of the argument agree that we should not be a nation of triumphant Christian supremacists, but nor should we be a nation of molly-coddlers seeking to wrap the entire population in a protective layer of liberal gauze. We should abide by the principles of tolerance and respect: tolerance for belief or non-belief, twinned with respect not just for this country’s present, but its history. We in Britain are known for our adherence to tradition.”
“The local newspaper reported her to have said: “Let’s face it, we are supposed to be politically correct now.” What authority has determined that “we” are “supposed” to be politically correct? Why should citizens of any philosophical or religious world view unthinkingly surrender to the totalitarian and ever-shifting ideology of political correctness? In the Helston case, Ms Woodhouse is reported to have said: “If anyone really took offence they could criticise the council. It isn’t right. With respect to the reverend who opens the meeting with a prayer, is it politically correct to only have Christian prayers at the beginning of the meeting?” Note that she uses the word “if” anyone took offence—we are dealing with a pure hypothetical.”
“I warmly welcome the Bill, which seeks to provide a legislative basis for continuing the tradition, wherever it may be desired, of prayers before meetings in local government. The purpose of new clause 1, without at all inhibiting the freedom of councils and local authorities to employ or not employ prayer at their meetings, is to ask those bodies to keep in mind the religious heritage of our country and the religious foundations of the state, which are of a Judaeo-Christian nature. That is what my new clause proposes—having regard to the Judeao-Christian nature of our country. Helston town council in Cornwall came in for a bit of flak in 2010, when resident Pat Woodhouse attacked the council for having “Christian-only prayers”.”
“It is often people in whose families there is absolutely no religion who are led astray into following bizarre sects and the like.”
“I drafted my new clause carefully. It is meant to constitute a serious contribution to the debate. I am not arguing that there should, or must, be prayers before a council meeting. Of course, no one needs to go to them anyway. It is simply a decision that is made at the time of the council meeting. Nor am I arguing that the prayers must be of a Judaeo-Christian nature. I am, however, making the serious point, in this House of Commons, that this is our past. This is our foundation. This is what has made us free. We cannot just say that we must have a “time for reflection” before council meetings, and that anything goes, because if we do that we lose contact with our history. I think that in losing contact with our history of tolerance—which is the foundation, or essence, of the British state—we actually encourage religious extremism.”
“That sums it up: wouldn’t it be nice? No one is using the language of compulsion. Wouldn’t it be nice? What is wrong with a moment for reflection?”
“We used to say that we “humbly beseech thee to send down thy Heavenly Wisdom from above, to direct and guide us in all our consultations; and grant that, we having thy fear always before our eyes, and laying aside all private interests, prejudices, and partial affections, the result of all our counsels may be to the glory of thy blessed Name, the maintenance of true Religion and Justice, the safety, honour, and happiness of the Queen, the publick wealth, peace and tranquillity of the Realm, and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the same”. What glorious language from our established Church, from the King James Bible, from the Prayers before Parliament. I commend my new clause to the House.”
“Somehow this can be viewed as reassuring, as we are just dealing with one religion or world view as we have dealt with others. The new clause seeks to reaffirm our connection to the past through the actions of the present. There is a grave danger of we in Britain becoming severed from our roots, and lacking an understanding of our history. Such a deracinated population would be much easier to manipulate, whether by a Hitler, a Stalin, or some other modern-day tyrant whose dominion we fear. Asking not even that we affirm the Judaeo-Christian tradition of our country, but merely that councils keep it in mind, is one small way of keeping us in touch with our roots. That is why I propose my new clause. May I end by reading out that marvellous prayer which we used to say in this House, and which is worth quoting from?”
“Secular liberalism often purports to have the answer to religion. Everyone and everything is free, and people can do whatever they want. Yet there is a curious aversion to those who choose to do religious things, especially if they are done in public. Why do some people have an aversion to others having prayers before Parliament and before council meetings? I am not sure that I understand that aversion, although I am sure it is sincerely felt. In reality, the liberal secularist perspective is as much an all-encompassing and behaviour-determining world view as Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any religion. In purporting, whether explicitly or implicitly, to be “above” religion, liberal secularism is making truth claims just as strongly as religions do.”
“I think I would have been criticised if I had done that, although I should have been happy to do it. Speaking for myself—if it is at all relevant—I am very ecumenical. I serve on the Lincoln cathedral council, and I have absolutely no objection to taking part in Church of England services and Church of England prayers; nor, I am sure, does anyone else who is sitting here. However, I think that if I had tried to lay down a particular denomination, I would have been severely criticised. As far as I am aware, the Church of England is a Christian denomination. A broad encompassing new clause which talks about Christianity does not prevent Church of England prayers from taking place. So I am afraid that I cannot accept that argument, but if my hon. Friend—who tabled the Bill—wants to advance it, it is for him to do so.”
“I am disappointed, particularly by the Minister’s reply to, I thought, my comprehensive introduction—but there we are. I have been here long enough to know that we keep soldiering on.”
“Members this morning; if we were to have a vote, there might not be the required number to enable the Bill to continue. I cannot risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is too risky to have a vote for that reason. However, I still have one or two friends left in the world and some are in the other place. I shall have a word with them in the hope that the other place might return to the issue. Meanwhile, in a spirit of good will, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 Powers of councils”
“I’ll get over it. I am also disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) does not want to accept my amendment. I repeat that my amendment does not require prayers in the Christian tradition. It was put forward in a serious way, but my hon. Friend says it is not appropriate for this country, which is a multi-faith and presumably multicultural society. Without wanting to repeat what I said in my speech, I should say that that was precisely my point. We should have regard for the fact that our roots are of a Judeo-Christian nature. I was simply asking councils to have regard to it. Much as I feel strongly about the issue, I am aware that the Lobbies of the House may not be seething with hon.”
“We caused this, and we have to put it right. The state—or the establishment—is responsible. I do not know who is really responsible—probably no particular individual; no doubt everybody was trying their best—but there has been gross negligence over several decades, since perhaps as early as the 1940s when the viral risks associated with the blood products in question were known and patients were not informed. One of the greatest scandals in all this is that so many patients have been kept in the dark.”
“I have said that many of us are here today because of constituents, and I am here because of my constituent Gary Jones from Scotter, who has raised this issue with me several times. I want to share some of his thoughts with the House. First, however, may I make an apology: I am on the Panel of Chairs and quite soon I will have to go and chair a private Bill, so I may miss the winding-up speeches. As I have said, I want to talk about the issues Gary Jones has raised and, in particular the Irish compensation scheme. Before doing so, however, I want to echo and emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said in an intervention as it makes the point very clearly. I have already said this once and I will say it again, and it will be said several times during this debate: let right be done.”
“There are many MPs, like Jim, who do not necessarily see their political life as one of holding high office but who realise we are here to try to promote causes, particularly as, because of our constituency system, when we speak here we often do so because our constituents have approached us. In other political systems Members of national Parliaments are perhaps more remote. One national politician who is not remote is the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). We are all very grateful that he is here today given his other responsibilities, and I am working with him on another issue where people’s lives have been ruined through no fault of their own. We value his presence here today.”
“I echo the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) in describing this as a debt of honour. That, I think, sums up what the debate is all about. We caused this. We did not cause it personally, of course, but it was caused by the state and the national health service, so we are responsible. I congratulate all Members who have spoken—particularly, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has campaigned so effectively. I also pay tribute to my late friend Jim Dobbin. As has already been mentioned, his memorial service took place yesterday, and, in paying tribute to him, the Bishop of Southwark described him as an MP of causes. I know the House of Commons and politicians are often criticised, perhaps quite rightly, but I think this debate shows the House of Commons at its best.”
“It is worth repeating that campaigners have never expressed a wish to place the Government’s funding of any compensation scheme in Irish hands. For myself, I do not suggest that the compensation should be exactly the same, but the Irish scheme is worth looking at in terms of compassion: it puts compassion first; it accepts liability; and it is substantial enough for the victims to gain closure. So I encourage Ministers to look further into the compensation scheme the Republic of Ireland has established and to see what lessons might be applicable to us here in the UK.”
“Although there has been compensation in many cases, it has been inadequate—indeed, they would claim it has been miserly. For instance, although there is a one-off payment available for hepatitis stage 1, there is no ongoing payment. All this is plainly unacceptable; I think everybody who has spoken agrees with that. It is also obvious that there must be a suitable scheme for compensation to the victims—not that any monetary amount can repair the damage that has been done. The Irish scheme has perhaps not received as much attention as it should have done in this debate so far, and again I am quoting here from the arguments given to me by my constituent. It is not, as I am afraid some of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have suggested, that we want to link the UK compensation payment scheme to that which exists in Ireland.”
“I entirely agree, and I do not think this is just a question of money. If we attack the Government just in terms of money, we might not succeed in this campaign. It is also a question of learning lessons, and what the victims want above all is some sense of involvement in future schemes. We must learn lessons, and I am sure we are doing so. The screening of blood donors was totally inadequate, allowing those with a history of jaundice to donate. Even in response to the rise of AIDS the Government failed to implement the best technology available at the time to render blood products safe. The results of this neglect have been appalling: the infection of over 5,000 haemophiliacs with hepatitis B and C, over 1,000 of whom were also infected with HIV from NHS blood products, resulting in 2,500 deaths.”