HL Deb 18 October 1990 vol 522 cc1031-3

3.8 p.m.

Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will make a statement on the question of compensation for the 1,215 haemophiliacs infected by blood products contaminated with the AIDS virus, in the light of the recommendations by Mr Justice Ognall.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)

My Lords, the Government have already recognised the moral and compassionate arguments mentioned by Mr. Justice Ognall through their ex-gratia payments totalling about £34 million. This money has been made available help all HIV-infected haemophiliacs and not just those involved in litigation. We are committed to keeping the needs of all those infected haemophiliacs and their families under review.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. But he was not talking about compensation, as those are relatively small sums. Is he aware that there is growing anxiety and deep feeling among Members on all political Benches and also among the general public that the Secretary of State is showing so little sensitivity to a group of people twice smitten—first, with haemophilia and, secondly, with HIV and AIDS through no fault of their own? Does he accept that if these unfortunate people are obliged to press their claims for compensation through the courts many of them may well be dead by the time the result is made known? Does the Minister agree that it is not a matter of cash but of honour?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord. It is an appalling tragedy that so many haemophiliacs were affected by HIV as a result of their treatment. That is why the Government came forward with the money which I mentioned in my original Answer. It amounts to about £20,000 for every affected haemophiliac and more for those whose needs are greater. The principle of paying full compensation only when negligence is proved applies generally and not just to haemophiliacs. There would be grave consequences for the practice of medicine and the funding of the National Health Service if compensation were to be paid whenever a patient suffered harm as a result of treatment but when no one was at fault.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, if these cases are taken to court, can the Minister say how much the cost will be to the health service in legal costs and in medical time?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I cannot give an estimate of the full costs of litigation. Obviously such costs would be great and we recognise the argument that the resources likely to be taken up by such litigation would be better used on services for National Health Service patients. However, the point I made earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, still applies: care for patients would not benefit if, as the likely outcome of compromising the present legal action, this were to encourage other expensive litigation.

Lord Allen of Abbeydale

My Lords, would not some of these problems have been avoided if the Government had pursued with greater vigour the lines of inquiry suggested by the Pearson Royal Commission on compensation for personal injury in this very difficult area of medical accidents?

Lord Henley

My Lords, my understanding is that the Pearson Committee did not recommend a general system of no-fault compensation for medical accidents in this country. The Royal Commission considered the matter very carefully but came down against it in 1978. I do not think that circumstances have changed since that time.

Lord Allen of Abbeydale

My Lords, I did not say that the commission made a recommendation to that effect; I said that it suggested further lines of inquiry. Is it not therefore disappointing that the Government have done so little in following them up?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not accept what the noble Lord has just said. Further, I do not think that this is necessarily an appropriate moment for a general debate on the possible advantages or disadvantages of the recommendations made by the Pearson Committee.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I do not agree. In my view, this is the best possible time for such a debate. Is it not appalling that people who quite clearly could only have contracted HIV and AIDS because of the blood they were given (which they were required to have) should have to argue their case before a court in all these circumstances? Surely it is at this time, when the public and the Government are aware that the case for no-fault liability would deal with this and many other cases, that the matter should seriously be considered.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am sorry; I simply do not accept what the noble Lord said. I repeat: it is the most appalling tragedy that so many haemophiliacs have been affected. However, I do not feel that no-fault compensation would be the answer to the problem. The Government have responded to this appalling tragedy by means of payments through the two Macfarlane Trusts. As the noble Lord knows. flat-rate payments of £20,000 have been made to every single haemophiliac infected by HIV and further payments, according to need, will be made to the others.