Growing requires Ken Clarke to be stripped of his peerage over contaminated blood scandal | EUROtoday

Sign up for the View from Westminster electronic mail for professional evaluation straight to your inbox

Get our free View from Westminster electronic mail

Calls are rising for the previous well being secretary Ken Clarke to be stripped of his peerage after he was condemned for “indefensible” actions throughout the contaminated blood scandal.

Demands for Lord Clarke to be kicked out of the House of Lords are “totally understandable”, a cupboard minister mentioned.

Mel Stride additionally mentioned the Tory grandee nonetheless had inquiries to reply over the largest healthcare failure in UK historical past.

The ultimate report of the Infected Blood Inquiry accused Lord Clarke of “misleading” the general public and attacked his “combative style” when he gave proof.

He was criticised by the inquiry chair Sir Brian Langstaff for suggesting there was “no conclusive proof” that Aids might be unfold by blood.

His claims that “campaigners attributed everything to me because I later became a well-known figure” and that they have been attempting to “find some celebrity whose fault it was”, have been additionally condemned.

Clive Smith, the chair of the Haemophilia Society, mentioned Lord Clarke’s engagement with the official inquiry had been “appalling”.

Asked if Lord Clarke ought to stay within the Lords, he advised 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’ve the conclusions of the Infected Blood Inquiry report, I believe our letter was well-timed and completely correct.

“The way in which he gave his evidence (to the inquiry) was appalling.”

Des Collins, a solicitor who represents 1,500 victims of the scandal, additionally advised The Telegraph: “He should have his peerage stripped.”

Maria Armour, who contracted Hepatitis C by a blood transfusion in 1981, mentioned: “He should definitely give his peerage up. He and Jeremy Hunt should be arrested for their deceit and the arrogance they showed during the inquiry.”

Andrew Evans, chairman and co-founder of marketing campaign group Tainted Blood mentioned: “I think Ken does have a role to play, but he’s certainly not the only one.”

Labour MP Dame Diana Johnson advised The Independent: “It is very rare for a peerage to be removed as it requires an Act of Parliament, however some victims think he should give up his peerage voluntarily. I agree with Andrew.”

Asked if he felt Lord Clarke has inquiries to reply, Mr Stride, the Work and Pensions secretary, advised 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 later mentioned he “totally understands” why victims have referred to as for Lord Clarke to be stripped of his peerage.

“I totally understand that. There will be absolutely, correctly very strong feelings about many aspects of the conclusions and what has been unearthed,” he advised GB News.

In a 1983 press launch Lord Clarke mentioned: “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 the following a number of years.

But Sir Brian mentioned that whereas it was “technically correct” the road was “indefensible. It did not spell out the real risk. It gave false reassurance. It lacked candour and, by not telling the whole truth, was misleading.”

He added: “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 ought to have executed.”

Ministers are on Tuesday expected to confirm details of a compensation scheme around four decades after government decided against any form of payout to those infected with HIV.

Lord Clarke, who was a health minister at the time, said there would be no state scheme to compensate those suffering what were “the unavoidable antagonistic results” of medical procedures.

Lord Clarke has been contacted for remark.