HL Deb 15 January 1988 vol 491 cc1443-4

11.12 a.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to make any financial compensation to women in this country who have suffered damage from the use of the Dalkon Shield, following the recent judgment on this matter in the United States.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)

My Lords, no. The Government consider that any compensation claims arising in connection with the Dalkon Shield are a matter for the appropriate courts and the compensation fund set up by the manufacturing company.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the reason why so many women ignored the deadline for compensation claims resulting from the use of this particular shield may have been a lack of communication between the DHSS and the American company in question and also a failure to mount a sufficient publicity campaign? Can the Minister say when the Government first knew that the Dalkon Shield was a defective product? Secondly, why was it only recalled in 1975, one year after it was withdrawn in the United States? Thirdly, why were the women who had been fitted with this device not themselves recalled by their family planning associations and informed of what had happened?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am advised that the manufacturer stopped selling and distributing this device in the United Kingdom in July 1974 immediately after similar action had been taken in the United States pending investigations into its safety by the US Food and Drug Administration following reports of problems. So far as I am aware, the FDA did not ask for the device to be recalled as a result of its investigations. The manufacturers wrote to all doctors about the Dalkon Shield in 1974, 1980 and 1985. Furthermore, it is good practice for doctors to carry out regular follow-up checks on patients fitted with IUDs of any kind. That advice is contained in the Handbook of Contraceptive Practice which was first published in 1974.

I am afraid I do not know how many women are still using such devices, but we understand that 100,000 were distributed in the United Kingdom and an estimated 90,000 were actually used at one time.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, is there not something very unsatisfactory about a situation in which 3,700 British women who suffered as a result of using this device are to be compensated but that another 6,000 who suffered similarly are not to be compensated? As regards the level of publicity that was required, were the Government not consulted by the A. H. Robins Company and, if so, can the Minister tell the House what response the firm received?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, clearly it would not have been appropriate for the Government to take action in a matter of litigation. As directed by a US federal judge, the manufacturers themselves mounted a worldwide publicity campaign to invite claims and their action resulted in considerable media coverage. I have made that point clear.

There is no doubt that the situation was well described in the media and generally. It was known to health authorities on the dates that I have already mentioned. It is true that 3,700 women from the United Kingdom were included in the 300,000 claims reportedly received. As regards the other figure that the noble Lord has mentioned, I am afraid it is new to me. If he would like to pursue the point, I shall take it up on his behalf.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I am most grateful for those remarks. But is the Minister happy about a situation in which the department in a sense is wiping its hands of the situation? Does he not recall that on a previous occasion Sir Gerard Vaughan intervened in the case of the Distillers Company in order to secure justice? Would it not be appropriate to consult with his right honourable friend and take some initiative to ensure justice for those unfortunate women?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am not yet sure that justice will not be forthcoming, since the noble Lord has already accepted that 3,700 women from the United Kingdom were included in the claims. He has mentioned other women who were not included in the claims. If that is true, then, obviously, I shall have to take the matter further. However, I should point out that the position of the Government on compensation for medical accidents generally is well known and follows the advice of the Pearson Commission which concluded that negligence should continue to be the basis for liability for most medical injuries.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that alternative British-manufactured products are available?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, there is a vast range of intrauterine devices currently available, some of which are made in this country and others abroad.