§ 3.36 p.m.
§ Lord Tordoffasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their refusal to compensate non-haemophiliacs infected with the AIDS virus through contaminated NHS blood transfusions.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)My Lords, we have every sympathy for the people who have suffered in this way. Nevertheless, the Government's policy remains one of compensation upon proof of negligence; the only concession relating to people who suffer the double misfortune of haemophilia and HIV.
§ Lord TordoffMy Lords, sympathy is not enough in this case. There is a strong moral obligation on the National Health Service, and therefore on the Government, to compensate people who have suffered in this way. Is the noble Baroness aware that it would be extremely difficult to prove negligence—even if one attempted to do so—because of the non-availability of certain confidential records within the health service?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, any case where a patient suffers a medical accident is, of course, a great tragedy. However, both your Lordships' House, another place and the Royal Commission have indicated that the Government should not go down the path of no-fault compensation which the noble Lord advocates. It must be remembered that we offer first rate services for everyone suffering from HIV and AIDS. Some £200 million has been earmarked this year especially for that area to spend on those suffering from HIV and AIDS. We took the view that haemophiliacs were a special case.
§ Lord KilmarnockMy Lords, is it not the case that there is no question of no-fault compensation, which was rejected by the House of Commons? If the Government took this step they would go no further in that direction than they did in the case of the haemophiliacs and the amount of money involved would be a tiny proportion of the amount awarded to them. Both cases spring from treatment that was received in good faith from the NHS. How can the Government make a distinction?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, we consider that the haemophiliacs are a special case because the health, social and financial problems caused by the haemophiliacs' lifelong condition were exacerbated by the onset of HIV. It was that combination of circumstances that persuaded us to make a concession in that case.
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint MaryleboneMy Lords, have members of the department which my noble friend represents so well in this House ever heard of the case of Rylands v. Fletcher? If they have not, will they look it up in Halsbury's Laws of England, in which I hope I may declare a modest interest?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for those comments. I suggest that everyone should take his advice and look up that case.
§ Lord CarterMy Lords, will the Minister give the House the Government's estimate of the number of people who would be affected if compensation were paid, and the likely cost of that on public funds? Will she confirm that payments have been made to people who are not HIV infected but were the marital partners of HIV infected haemophiliacs? Those payments were made to compensate for stress. How, in logic, can the Minister defend those payments and not payments to the people we are discussing who have been infected with the HIV virus?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, the total number of reported cases in this particular category is 190, of whom not all were transfused in the United Kingdom. The estimated cost of extending the most recent settlement for haemophiliacs—which would be the action to be taken—would not be insignificant and could exceed £10 million. While comparisons are always difficult it should be remembered that £10 1425 million equates, for example, to the cost of 1,000 kidney transplants, 500 heart transplants or 300 bone marrow transplants. These are very difficult decisions.
§ Lord Allen of AbbeydaleMy Lords, is it accurate to say that the Royal Commission—by which I assume the noble Baroness means the Pearson Commission —came down against no-fault for medical negligence? The commission found that a very difficult chapter to write but suggested that the matter be kept under review. It did not come to a firm conclusion. Is it also fair to say that the decision in another place on a particular Private Member's Bill did not relate to the general principle but to the particular course of action proposed in that Bill—with which I do not agree—which was not acceptable?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, the measures and the concept were discussed fully in both Houses in relation to that Private Member's Bill. It is a difficult area. Of course the Government are keeping the matter under review. As we announced during the passage of the Private Member's Bill, we are looking at the length of the legal process and introducing measures to improve the procedures. I understand that the period for consultation in relation to arbitration on medical negligence comes to an end tomorrow.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the proposal, which I think came from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House should be set up to inquire into no-fault compensation limited to medical accidents? If she is aware of that suggestion, is she also aware that it received approval on all sides of the House? If she is aware of that, too, does she know what is being done about it?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, I am aware of the point raised by my noble friend today and on previous occasions. My answer on previous occasions was that this is a matter for the usual channels. Perhaps I may repeat that answer now.
§ Lord TordoffMy Lords, will the Minister give an answer to my first supplementary question as to whether she is aware of the difficulty of proving fault in such cases because of the lack of access to evidence which is contained in the confidential files of the National Health Service? If the Government do not intend to provide compensation, as referred to in my first Question, what do they intend to do to enable lawyers to bring actions for negligence?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, I recognise that there are difficulties in relation to preserving blood donor anonymity in these cases. In those circumstances the courts themselves will decide whether the greater public interest lies in disclosing further details.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, is it not a fact that the contaminated blood which was transfused into innocent people here was imported from America? Does that not give the people who have consequently 1426 suffered a very strong case for understanding, as well as compassion, on the part of the department and for being given the compensation they deserve?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, as I said, every medical accident is a human tragedy. The noble Lord's argument could be made in relation to any major accident. The important point in this case is that we are providing first class treatment for HIV and AIDS sufferers and we have taken precautions to ensure the safety of the blood supply. That includes the fact that since October 1985 all donations have been screened for HIV antibodies.
§ Lord KilmarnockMy Lords—
§ Lord HeskethMy Lords, it is the established practice in Question Time in this House that when 30 minutes is shown on the clock, which indicates that the 31st minute is passing, I should rise in order to make the business statement.