UK Government

It is clear that blood products and blood were contaminated, and despite a wealth of evidence, no action was taken to spell out the risks, and insufficient precautions were taken. It is also evident that despite these failings, no proper action was taken to investigate and understand what had happened. Understandably, a number of participants to the Inquiry have called for a recognised process in deciding whether or not there should be a public inquiry into a matter which is potentially of public concern, or from which lessons might be learned.

The Inquiry recommends that the UK Parliament should have a role in recommending the establishment of a public inquiry, and that Ministers should set out the reasons behind a decision not to hold an Inquiry. The Government welcomes these recommendations, recognising that Parliamentary Select Committees already have the power to scrutinise departments and make recommendations, and it is for Parliament to consider these recommendations.

The Government also notes that the recent report by the House of Lords Committee on Inquiries recommends that "formal implementation monitoring should be undertaken by a new, joint, select committee of Parliament: the Public Inquiries Committee". Therefore while we note the recommendations made by the Inquiry, it is for Parliament to decide whether to accept these recommendations, and decide how to fulfil recommendation 11 alongside its existing scrutiny mechanisms.

Should Parliament decide to adopt recommendation 11, the Government accepts its obligation under 11d), to set out in detail and publish reasons when it disagrees with a recommendation to establish an inquiry.

Next Steps

The Government’s response to the recommendations of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee was published on 10 February. In its response, the Government committed to providing a further update to Parliament on its intentions for wider reforms of the frameworks around inquiries.