Victims of the infected blood scandal have called for former health secretary Ken Clarke to be stripped of his peerage.

Lord Clarke was heavily criticised in a report by Sir Brian Langstaff, chair of a seven-year inquiry into the scandal that killed more than 3,000 and infected more than 30,000 Britons with HIV and Hepatitis C with infected blood products between the 1970s and early 1990s.

The politician was a health minister in Margaret Thatcher’s government from 1982 to 1985, then health secretary from 1988 to 1990 before becoming home secretary and chancellor under John Major.

He described the infections in 1985 as “the unavoidable adverse effects which can unhappily arise from many medical procedures”.

Follow live: Details of infected blood scandal compensation to be confirmed

Sir Brian said there was evidence by 1982 that infections were happening through imported blood products, meaning Lord Clarke’s claims “gave false assurances, lacked candour” and were misleading.

Victims have now said Lord Clarke should no longer be allowed to continue sitting in the House of Lords. He was handed a peerage in 2020 by Boris Johnson.

Des Collins, a lawyer representing 1,500 victims, said he should be stripped of his peerage.

“There are a lot who haven’t been singled out, but he was one of them,” he said.

Read more: Who is criticised in infected blood report?

And Maria Armour, who contracted Hepatitis C through a blood transfusion in 1981 but only found out in 2004, said: “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.”

Current government minister Mel Stride told Sky News Lord Clarke has always been “a decent and nice man” to him, and “always been very polite and kind to me”.

But he said he is “concerned” by the points raised about Lord Clarke in the inquiry report and “there are clearly questions that are being posed that need to be addressed”.

However, he said it is not for him to decide if Lord Clarke is stripped of his peerage as that is a matter for the forfeiture committee, which decides who gets admitted to the House of Lords.

More on this story:
Infected blood scandal should ‘shake nation to core’
Podcast: Scandal was ‘not an accident’

It is very rare for a peerage to be removed as it requires an Act of Parliament, however victims think he should give up his peerage voluntarily.

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

Lord Clarke was also accused in the report by of being “somewhat blasé” when he gave evidence to the inquiry about the collection of blood from prisoners as late as 1983.

His manner was described as “argumentative”, “unfairly dismissive” and “disparaging” towards those who have suffered, with Sir Brian saying he played “some part” in that suffering.

The Thatcher government, as well as subsequent governments and health secretaries, continually said infections were “inadvertent” and patients were given “the best treatment available on the then current medical advice”.

The inquiry report concluded that was not true and said the factual basis for the claim was unclear.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said the UK economy is heading for a “soft landing” but reiterated its message to Jeremy Hunt that he should not have cut national insurance at the last two fiscal events.

In its annual check-up on the state of Britain’s economy, the Washington-based Fund also warned of a black hole in the public finances, with £30bn of spending cuts or tax rises needed to stabilise the national debt.

Money latest:
Easiest countries for Britons to retire to revealed

The fund raised its forecast for gross domestic product growth this year from 0.5% to 0.7%, saying: “The UK economy is approaching a soft landing, with a recovery in growth expected in 2024, strengthening in 2025.”

It now expects inflation to come down to close to 2% in the coming months, and the Bank of England to cut interest rates by as much as three-quarters of a percent this year, and then another percentage point next year.

The chancellor welcomed the fund’s article IV report, saying: “Today’s report clearly shows that independent international economists agree that the UK economy has turned a corner and is on course for a soft landing.

“The IMF have upgraded our growth for this year and forecast we will grow faster than any other large European country over the next six years – so it is time to shake off some of the unjustified pessimism about our prospects.”

However, the IMF – which has warned the government explicitly in the past not to cut taxes too fast in the face of rising spending projections in future – said that the two 2p national insurance contribution (NIC) cuts at the last two fiscal events were a mistake.

“In light of the medium-term fiscal challenge,” the report said. “Staff would have recommended against the NIC rate cuts, given their significant cost.”

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

The fund’s staff also believe that the government is not on track to meet its main fiscal rule, which commits it to cutting the national debt in five years time.

It believes net debt will carry on rising towards 97% of GDP in the following years, instead of falling back to 93% of GDP, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast.

The fund’s double-edged report comes amid improving news for the UK.

Data released two weeks ago showed the country ended its short-lived recession with faster-than-expected growth in the first quarter of the year.

The Office for National Statistics is also expected to announce tomorrow that inflation dropped down close to the Bank of England’s 2% target in April.

That may enable the Bank to begin cutting interest rates from their 5.25% level in June or August.

The fund’s report contained a number of other recommendations for economic policy in the UK, including that the Bank of England should commit to more press conferences to explain its decisions, and that the government should consider imposing road charges to replace the revenue lost from fuel duty as electric cars become more predominant on UK roads.

The government’s attempt to lower the threshold for police intervening in protests was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

Campaign group Liberty brought legal action against the Home Office over protest regulations passed by statutory instrument last year.

Politics Live: Rishi Sunak promises to ‘move as quickly as possible’

The measures lowered the bar for what is considered “serious disruption” to community life, from “significant” and “prolonged” to “more than minor”.

They also allowed police officers to take into account “any relevant cumulative disruption” of repeated protests.

Liberty called the High Court ruling a “huge victory for democracy”.

Ministers had tried to introduce the same changes when the Public Order Bill went through parliament, but they were rejected by the Lords at the time by 254 votes to 240.

The step to restore the provisions by statutory instrument, which faces less scrutiny than primary legislation, was criticised at the time but passed last year.

‘Huge victory for democracy’

At a hearing in February, lawyers for Liberty asked the High Court to quash the “unlawful” provision.

And in a ruling on Tuesday, two judges ruled for the group, finding the Home Office acted outside of its powers by reducing the threshold and failed to carry out a fair consultation process.

Lord Justice Green and Mr Justice Kerr said: “As a matter of ordinary and natural language ‘more than minor’ is not within the scope of the word ‘serious’.”

Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, said after the judgment: “This ruling is a huge victory for democracy and sets down an important marker to show that the government cannot step outside of the law to do whatever it wants.

“We all have the right to speak out on the issues we believe in and it’s vital that the government respects that.

Read More:
How have protest laws changed?
Protesters who climb on war memorials could face jail

“These dangerous powers were rejected by parliament yet still sneaked through the back door with the clear intention of stopping protesters that the government did not personally agree with, and were so vaguely worded that it meant that the police were given almost unlimited powers to shut down any other protest too.

“This judgment sends a clear message that accountability matters and that those in power must make decisions that respect our rights.”

‘Extreme’ protest groups could be proscribed

The ruling comes ahead of a report by Lord Walney on political violence and disruption, which is due to be published later today.

On Sunday he did not rule out a recommendation that organisations such as Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action be proscribed in a similar way to terrorist groups.

Speaking to Sky News, the crossbench peer said he was asked by ministers to examine “extremism at the far right, but also at the anti-democratic far left, and to look at whether there has been sufficient attention to the way in which far left organisations can seek to disrupt and undermine our country”.

He said that some organisations are using “criminal tactics” to “force the conversation towards the kind of change that they want rather than engaging in democratic channels”.

Asked specifically about Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action he said: “Both of those organisations are clearly breaking the law as a way of trying to force the conversation. And I think we should be less relaxed about that.”