§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) (by private notice)To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health what is the reliability of HIV/AIDS tests carried out under the NHS in the past 12 months and what assurances there are about the method of re-testing in case the tests have proved unreliable.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis)I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this question. There is every reason to have confidence in our HIV testing system, even after the recent need to withdraw a particular test kit. Since this Abbott test was introduced in July 1995, some 125,000 tests have been performed, 25,000 of which used this particular kit.
Re-testing of stored samples for those who had been tested using this kit started over the Easter weekend and is largely complete. So far, with more than 90 per cent. of stored samples retested, all but three cases have been reconfirmed as negative. Those three are being further investigated.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI thank the Minister, but ask him to draw some conclusions that he can put into action as a result of this public health incident, that involving oral contraceptives last autumn and that related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Is not the message of those three incidents that Government agencies need to work not only with the voluntary sector but with the press to ensure that there is neither over-reaction, as there was in the case of oral contraceptives and BSE, nor delayed under-reaction, as was the case with the HIV/AIDS test, which meant that the voluntary sector and hospitals had to cope over a bank holiday weekend without the necessary information? Can we have a proper system that provides information as quickly as possible and takes the press into the confidence of the Department of Health, just as the police often take journalists into their confidence when discussing a serious matter of criminal law?
§ Mr. BowisI thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he handled the matter on Good Friday when talking to the media. That was helpful, as was the response of Dr. Macara of the British Medical Association, the work of the various helplines, including those of Lighthouse, the Terence Higgins Trust, the National Aids Trust and the BBC, which went into action to calm people's worries and disseminate a message that had been put out on the radio by the deputy chief medical officer, Dr. Winyard.
Of course, we shall look at the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised to see what lessons may be learned. When leaks occur, they can be difficult to deal with; when a leak occurs on a bank holiday, he will understand that it is even more difficult to deal with. Of course, matters 512 need to be reviewed by Abbott where the problem arose, but we shall examine the way in which the information was handled once it had arrived with us.
There will always be a difficult balance to strike in such matters between providing individuals with information and waiting for the necessary handling arrangements to be put in place. That is the balance that we try to get right.
§ Ms Harriet Harman (Peckham)Will the Minister confirm that the company withdrew the faulty tests from United Kingdom use on 25 March? When did he personally know of the problem with the faulty HIV tests? Why did the news not become public until 11 days later, on Good Friday, at the start of the Easter break? Did not that delay cause needless anxiety for thousands of people who were left to worry throughout Easter? Did it not cause needless problems for hospital doctors, general practitioners, clinics and voluntary organisations, which were not properly informed and left in the dark?
How many people does the Minister expect will be told that they are HIV-positive despite having already had a negative test result? Will he review procedures and report back to the House on consultation with relevant organisations and back-up arrangements for such future health problems? Is this not yet another example—it is exactly the same as the contraceptive pill announcement—of the Government's delay, mishandling and incompetence?
§ Mr. BowisI answered most of the hon. Lady's questions in responding to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). No doubt she will look carefully at Hansardso that I do not have to repeat them. The unnecessary worry was caused by the leak—that is why the worry occurred.
The hon. Lady is also inaccurate about the dates. In fact, the information from Abbott's was first sent to the Medical Devices Agency at 5.15 pm on 29 March. She asked when I personally heard about it. I heard about it personally on Good Friday. In the meantime, the matter had been looked at in the preceding days by officials in our Department. A conscious decision was taken—I would have thought that the hon. Lady would understand it—that, having made arrangements for the announcements to be made after the bank holiday weekend, it would be better to make those announcements after the bank holiday weekend, so that the information did not cause worries when professional and technical advice and retesting facilities were not available. That, to me, is common sense, and that was what was done.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady, unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, did not put out an understanding, soothing and calming message to the public who might be worried. Instead, she has immediately tried to make party political capital out of the matter, which does her no credit and will cause many people who have no need to worry an anxiety that they could have done without. I hope that, in future, she will first consider the interests of people who have such tests and not the interests of her own party.