Blood Transfusions and AIDS: Compensation (Hansard, 7 June 1991)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper):
My Lords, the Government have no plans to extend the special financial help for haemophiliacs to people who have been infected through blood transfusions.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Baroness for the correspondence that she has been gracious enough to send me on this matter; it is very much appreciated. Nevertheless, the Answer which she has just given the House is somewhat sad and almost devoid of understanding and compassion. 845 Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling throughout the country that the Government are not doing the right thing? Can she say that this will never happen again and that imported blood, from wherever it comes, will be examined thoroughly to ensure that no such disaster occurs again? Will the Government nevertheless recognise that the disaster that they caused by not having the American blood examined is almost one of the most criminal endeavours which has afflicted this country? Is she aware that the general public are very much aware of that fact and believe that our Government should now make some realistic approach to help those who have suffered so much?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord knows very well that in general the Government do not accept the case for no-fault compensation for medical accidents. We have considered the position very fully, as each individual case is clearly a personal tragedy both for the family and individual concerned. However, we believe that the circumstances of HIV-infected haemophiliacs are wholly exceptional and justify the special provision which the Government are making. We have been consistent in making that clear.
As to the safety of blood supply in future, action has been taken. For example, since 1983 information has been given to blood donors identifying who should not give their blood. Furthermore, as soon as properly evaluated HIV antibody screening tests were available they were introduced. Since October 1985 every single donation has been screened.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, I have listened to Government Answers on this subject several times in the past in your Lordships' House. I have always been mystified as to the logic of the Government's position. Can the Minister clarify the situation? Essentially what seems to have happened is that some innocent people have been infected with HIV. The Minister used the expression "medical accident". As I understand it, the Government's view is that those people have to take the rough with the smooth; it was just bad luck, an accident, and that is it. Their lives have been ruined and their families' lives have been ruined but no case can be made. I should like to ask the Government two questions. First, can the noble Baroness explain why this particular class of accident is not being singled out? Secondly, more generally and wearing my Treasury hat I ask, is there not an overwhelming case for using public money to help these people? I speak as an outsider and an amateur, but the cases that I have read about in the newspapers are sufficiently appalling to suggest that the Government have not got this right.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, as I have said, in principle blood transfusion cases are no different from the cases of other people who have suffered medical accidents or the unintended side effects of treatment. In all of those cases the recourse is to seek the appropriate remedy through the courts upon proof of negligence. The wholly exceptional case of haemophiliacs, who are doubly disadvantaged by a serious 846 hereditary condition affecting their employment, mortgage and insurance prospects, and the additional disadvantage of HIV infection, has produced a combination of factors which we believe do not generally apply to blood transfusion cases, although, as I have said, we appreciate fully that they are tragic cases for each individual and family concerned.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness further on this matter. As I understand it, if I go into hospital to have an operation—and I see that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is in his seat—I take a chance. The operation may not work out and I may end up dead. I hope that that does not happen, but I know the risk beforehand. That is a chance I take and I understand that. However, if I go into hospital for medical treatment and have a blood transfusion it does not seem to me a priori that I understand that one of the chances that I take is that I may end up infected with HIV. The difference in the two cases is that this is not a chance that I could have conceivably thought about or to which I should have been subject. That is why my noble friend is asking why the Government do not see that that is a medical accident in the sense that most of us understand it. I am still at a loss to know the answer to the question.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, perhaps we shall be privileged to hear some specific examples from my noble friend Lord McColl which may go some way to responding to the noble Lord. However, we believe that, if an exception were made in that case, we should head in a piecemeal fashion towards a general scheme of no-fault compensation which we believe would be unworkable and unfair.

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, was one of the reasons why the haemophiliacs were given compensation that they ran a good campaign? It is difficult for individuals to run campaigns. Was another reason that Factor VIII, when it was infected with the AIDS virus, was still given to haemophiliacs? Might there be a little bit of guilt?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, the reason is the one that I have described; namely, that there was a wholly exceptional combination of factors which do not generally apply in other cases.

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that AIDS is a death sentence to any individual and therefore that the disaster is the same?

§ Baroness Hooper
Yes, my Lords, but the noble Baroness is missing the point that the general rule in all those cases is not a system of no-fault compensation. That has been made clear in recent debates on the subject and has resulted in a clear parliamentary decision not to introduce no-fault compensation for medical accidents. The exception was made in the case of haemophiliacs because we believed on all the evidence that this was a wholly different case.

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, with the leave of the House we are now approaching the 25th minute of Question Time and we still have another Question which needs to receive an Answer from the Government. If we do not proceed to it, I do not believe that we shall have a chance to answer it properly.