AIDS: Compensation (Hansard, 1 May 1991)

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, the Government accept that it is right and proper that those harmed through negligence should be compensated; but we continue to believe that a general scheme of no-fault compensation would create more problems than it would salve. We have great sympathy for those who became infected with the AIDS virus as a result of 750 blood transfusions. However, in our view their case is no different in principle from that of other people who have suffered from medical accidents or the unintended side effects of treatment and for whom recourse through the courts is the answer.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. How does the Government's policy in this area compare with their policy towards haemophiliacs? They have had £42 million to share, yet those who were involved in road accidents, who suffered from leukaemia or who sustained injury in childbirth and then had administered by their doctors the infected NHS blood are to get nothing. What sort of fair play is that? This issue is causing great consternation in the country. Many of those injected with factor 8 which was imported from the United States have died. The United States gets its blood from anyone who wants to give it. There is no control. People who already have AIDS give blood to the United States blood service. Among the donors are drop-outs and so on. In short, because we have imported this stuff—there is no other word for it—from the United States, hundreds of thousands of families have been afflicted. What will be done to prevent that happening in the future? Do the Government propose to give help to these people?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that strict controls are in place both on blood collected in this country and on imported blood products. With regard to the categories of persons to whom the noble Lord draws attention through this Question, there have been 135 reports of people infected with HIV through blood transfusions. Of those, 49 were transfused in the United Kingdom and 49 were transfused abroad. The place of transfusion is unknown in the remaining 37 cases. It is, I know, a small group; nevertheless, it can be differentiated from the haemophiliac group. It was generally agreed that the haemophiliacs formed a very special case, because there was an exceptional combination of circumstances which is not generally true in the blood transfusion cases. For example, HIV infected haemophiliacs were doubly disadvantaged. They had the pre-existing haemophilia, which affected their employment, mortgage and insurance prospects, and the additional problems of HIV infection. In addition, there is also the hereditary nature of haemophilia, which can mean that more than one member of the family might be affected. This combination of factors would not generally apply to blood transfusion cases.

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, is not the real point that the Government did not admit negligence in the case of the haemophiliacs, but they did accept a moral obligation? That is there on record in various pronouncements in the House of Commons and in this House also. The Government accepted a moral obligation. What then essentially is different in this case? The disadvantages to which the noble Baroness has referred are exactly the same in both cases.

§ Baroness Hooper
No, my Lords, the general policy is that the Government do not accept that there is a case for no-fault compensation for medical accidents. 751 These blood transfusion cases fall into the general medical accident category for which compensation must be sought through the courts. An exception, for the reasons on which I have at some length elaborated, was made in the case of haemophiliacs because they have very exceptional circumstances.

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, did not address no-fault compensation. It asked about this particular group of people.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, the logical inference to be drawn from the Question is that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, wishes to bring in some measure of no-fault compensation.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that consideration is being given at this moment as to whether a Select Committee of your Lordships' House should be set up to consider no-fault compensation for medical accidents?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, there has been a clear and recent parliamentary decision not to introduce no-fault compensation for medical accidents. Measures are already under way which will improve the procedures for those who take legal action. The Department of Health is committed to giving further consideration to improvements in the current arrangements both for dealing with claims of medical negligence and for improving on knowledge of the issues and numbers involved. All that is in the light of the debate and discussions in this House to which my noble friend contributed.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, whether or not one takes a pro or a negative view about no-fault compensation —we on these Benches take a positive view—this Question is not about no-fault compensation? Is not the issue at stake the group of people who, as a result of infected blood transfusions, now have HIV or AIDS? Further, does she agree that that applies not only to haemophiliacs but also to the figures to which she referred in her answer?
Is it not unjustified that these people who do not happen to be haemophiliacs but who, nevertheless, are suffering from the same dangers—that is, from either the disease or the fear of the disease—should not be considered? Therefore, will the Government look again at the matter? We are talking about a relatively small number of people, but a small number who are facing misery as result of what was an infected blood transfusion administered through the NHS.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I appreciate the concern about the matter. However, it is a difficult issue. The noble Lord argues that the cost involved is comparatively small, because the number of people in question is relatively small. But that view overlooks the unfairness which could result if a similar extension was not allowed to other disadvantaged groups. I refer not only to those injured as an unfortunate side effect of, perhaps, National Health Service treatment, but also to those suffering from an inherited disability.

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there can be a period when the blood has been tested but it does not show up the presence of the HIV virus and the person concerned can still become infected? Can she say what facilities are available for people who are going to have operations to have their own blood?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, the noble Baroness has developed the point a little too far. However, I shall be delighted to answer her question if she chooses to table it at a future date.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, all that the Minister said is, to a degree, understandable. However, I do not believe that the general public will understand it. Where there is someone in a family who has AIDS, people do not seek to excuse it by saying that that person got it from the NHS; they have to face the terrible fact that that person is infected. Is the noble Baroness prepared to consider the Canadian response to the problem? That country suffered from the disease through being so close to America. It has evolved a much fairer, more just and humane scheme to help everyone.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, we are constantly looking at ways in which we can improve the lot of those suffering from AIDS for whatever reason.