Ken Clarke should lose peerage over contaminated blood scandal, demand victims
Ken Clarke is facing calls to be stripped of his peerage over how he responded to the infected blood scandal as Margaret Thatcher’s Health Secretary.
The Tory was criticised by inquiry chairman Sir Brian Langstaff for claiming in 1983 there was “no conclusive proof” that Aids could be spread through blood.
Lord Clarke, 83, told the inquiry he was only being blamed because he had become a “celebrity”.
Clive Smith, chairman of the Haemophilia Society, said his evidence had been “breathtaking in the extreme”. Asked if Lord Clarke should stay in position in the House of Lords, he told LBC: “We wrote to the Upper House when it was suggested that he was going to get a peerage, saying ‘Please don’t do that yet, wait until the Infected Blood Inquiry has reported’.
“Now we have the conclusions of the Infected Blood Inquiry report, I think our letter was well-timed and entirely accurate. The way in which he gave his evidence (to the inquiry) was appalling.”
Asked if he feels Lord Clarke has questions to answer, Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride told Sky News: “There are clearly questions that are being posed, very serious questions, and to that degree indeed there are questions that need to be addressed.” He said stripping Lord Clarke of his peerage is a matter for the forfeiture committee.
The final report of the Infected Blood Inquiry accused Lord Clarke of “misleading” the public and attacked his “combative style” when he appeared at a hearing.
In 1983, an Aids leaflet was published alongside a press release in which Lord Clarke said: “It has been suggested that Aids may be transmitted in blood or blood products. There is no conclusive proof that this is so.” That line was repeated over several years.
Sir Brian said in his report: “It did not spell out the real risk. It gave false reassurance. It lacked candour and, by not telling the whole truth, was misleading. It was not an accurate reflection of the (Department of Health’s) actual understanding, which was that it was likely that Aids was transmitted through blood and blood products. No minister challenged the ‘no conclusive proof’ line. They should have done.”
In the 1980s, the government decided against any form of compensation to people infected with HIV, with Lord Clarke, who was health minister at the time, saying there would be no state scheme to compensate those suffering “the unavoidable adverse effects” of medical procedures.
