16:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 44 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Robinson
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend—this is indeed a good moment to do that—but sadly I disagree with the hon. Member for Poole, because we have had reviews.
In passing, let me make a positive reference to a former colleague in the Government at the time. As I understand it, the previous Secretary of State for Health—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—opened up one aspect of the issue, through the Skipton Fund in particular, although if I am wrong and the Minister wants to correct me, I should be only too happy to take an interjection from her. He did that last year to see whether there was any way of increasing Skipton to the levels of HIV/AIDS compensation—that proposal was put to me forcefully at meetings with the victims yesterday, and I am sure. that it will be again when we meet them at 4.30 pm If we could do that, it would be a step forward and we would feel that we were going in the right direction. If the Minister wants to tell me that that is the case, I would be very pleased to hear that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I have to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has read the written ministerial statement, because at the end it points out that we will be reviewing certain aspects.
Mr Robinson
That is my whole point: “We will be reviewing.” This has been going on for a year already. Who can put his hand on his heart and honestly say that anything more will come out of the review than we have already had? Nobody with any experience of this House or how Government works can say that. Today is the moment.
Anne Milton
I have to ask again whether the hon. Gentleman has read the written ministerial statement. I have said that I will look at certain aspects and I will report by Christmas, because I am acutely aware that campaigners on the issue have been left hanging for far too long.
Mr Robinson
Very good, but let me say this to the Minister, who is obviously genuinely concerned about the issue, as all Ministers have been. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley said, there are always two or three big issues, and this is certainly one of them, so we wait to hear. [Interruption.] The Minister should not tell us that we have not read the statement; we spent all yesterday trying to get a copy of the amendment, which seemed to be in the ether somewhere. Indeed, I asked her to e-mail me a copy yesterday at about 6 pm, but we could not see it even then. I have referred to the statement, which I think is useless, but why is it not referred to in the wording that is before the House? She did not want it there because it would carry more weight.
Mr Deputy Speaker
In fairness, the Minister is going to speak and there will be an opportunity to intervene on her. I am sure she will want to point out the figure at that stage. What I want to do is get on with the debate until she comes to speak, and then I am sure Members in all parts of the House will be able to intervene.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am getting the nod from the Minister that that will be dealt with in due course.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on her new post. We have something in common, inasmuch as I worked in Hackney for most of my life before I entered politics.
This has been a moving debate and I, too, welcome this opportunity to discuss these issues and to air people’s situations openly in the House. The story of those who have been affected by contaminated blood and its products is a dreadful human tragedy. I wonder whether, but can only hope that, an expression of sympathy from me can go some way towards making a difference to those affected. I am deeply sorry about the events that led to the infection of people who were treated with blood products with HIV and hepatitis C.
We always welcome new knowledge, but with that knowledge often comes deep regret about events that happened in the past. If we only knew then what we know now. We should always make sure, individually and as Governments, that we have the humility to learn from our past. I thank hon. Members for raising so many issues—about the terrible loss of life, of course, and about stigma and the additional cost of things such as dentistry. Yes, I would happily meet a delegation of hon. Members and my door will be open during this period of review.
I shall do all I can, in the time and on the terms available, to make sure that people’s views on access to psychological support are heard. I shall not be able to deal with all the points that have been raised today, but officials will come back to hon. Members, who, if they have further questions, can always contact me.
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the Minister address an issue that has not been raised—the medical assessments that people on benefits now have to go through under the new welfare reform programme? Will she consider making representations to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about passporting this group of claimants so that they do not have to go through medical assessments again?
Anne Milton
The hon. Lady makes an important point that has crossed my mind already. I shall talk to colleagues and officials in the DWP to make sure that that issue is addressed.
It is important to put on record some relevant events. In the early 1960s, the life expectancy of someone with haemophilia was less than 40 years. In the early 1970s, the development of a revolutionary new treatment—clotting factor concentrates produced from large pools of human plasma—led to what was then considered an exciting new era of treatment. It offered the potential to extend significantly the length and quality of the lives of patients with haemophilia. The risk of viral transmission through blood and blood products was recognised at that time, particularly the risk of post-transfusion hepatitis. Generally though, the consensus within the scientific community was that the risk of using multiple donors was low and worth taking. Significantly, at that time, the Haemophilia Society said, in a bulletin published in September 1983, that
“the advantages of treatment far outweigh any possible risk”.
Sadly, we know how wrong that was. Tragically, the society was wrong and a devastating blow was dealt. The initial hope was ultimately replaced by the dreadful realisation that, although lives were extended, almost 5,000 patients with haemophilia in the UK and thousands more throughout the world had been infected with hepatitis C, HIV or indeed both.
Many of those people have since lost their lives to those conditions, and more continue to do so by the week, and we should pay tribute to the many campaigners who have died. I fully understand the sense of grievance and anger that people feel. I am not in that position, and it is impossible to know fully what it feels like, but I do understand some of it. I also know that for some time, whatever the Government do, sadly it will be far too little, far too late.
At the time, however, no other treatment was available. The UK blood supply and the only alternative, a product called cryoprecipitate, were both contaminated. The only real treatment, therefore, was no treatment at all, and that was the case not only in the UK, but in countries throughout the world. At the time, France, Germany, Japan and the United States all took a similar view, which was widely held by the scientific community throughout the world.
When those treatments were first introduced, we had a very different view also of the risks from hepatitis C. It was not until the mid-1980s that scientific and medical literature began to reflect increasing concern about the seriousness of disease associated with hepatitis C, and I, as somebody who was working as a nurse at the time, remember it well.
Dr Pugh
The Minister will be aware that in the Government’s response to the Archer report, certain documents are described as “misplaced”—they no longer exist or can be found. Do they have any bearing whatever on the analysis, and if they were discovered would they correct it in any way?
Anne Milton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are talking about a long time ago; that is the trouble. I know that campaigners have been concerned about cover-ups, and that not all the documents have been released. I assure him that officials have told me that all documents have been released, but somewhere in the back of a cupboard, somebody at some point might discover more. It is a mistake to think that there is any conspiracy, however. I do believe, in all honesty, that previous Governments and the current Government have done, and continue to do, all that they can to ensure that all information is in the public domain.
As the consensus on the virus developed and technological advances occurred, the Government and the NHS moved quite quickly to address the risks. Heat treatment was introduced in 1985, and that effectively killed the hepatitis and HIV viruses. Validated tests for screening blood donations were also introduced. Since then, Governments have introduced a number of important safeguards to protect the blood supply, not least, as we heard today, from newer risks such as new variant CJD. We carefully assess, and shall continue to assess, all new evidence as it comes to light, and we now have EU directives that set standards of quality and safety.
I fully understand again the financial difficulties that many of those affected by contaminated blood products face. I have met some of them, and they have told me in some detail of their extraordinary experiences of living with the aftermath of infection. Not only were many of them infected, but they went on to infect their partners. They are, understandably, very concerned about their own and their family’s financial security, and they look to the Government to provide a degree of certainty in the years ahead.
Going—what may feel like—cap in hand to the state is demeaning, I know, but it is worth laying out the financial settlements that are currently available. Those infected with HIV receive a flat-rate payment of £12,800 per year, and they may also be eligible for additional discretionary payments. In the year ending April 2010, the average total payment to an individual infected with HIV was £17,400, although of course some received less and some received more. Those infected with hepatitis C are eligible to receive an initial one-off lump sum payment of £20,000 when they develop chronic infection. Despite contracting the virus, some people will make a full recovery, but many do not and go on to develop serious liver disease. For that group, there is a second one-off payment of £25,000. All those payments are tax-free and not used when calculating an individual’s eligibility for state benefits. Therefore, if they were unable to work for health reasons they would receive those benefits, but I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana R. Johnson).
The independent public inquiry on NHS-supplied contaminated blood and blood products, chaired by Lord Archer of Sandwell, investigated the circumstances surrounding the supply of blood products. It made several recommendations, the majority of which are in place in one way or another. However, a small number of recommendations have not been implemented. These primarily relate to aspects of the ex gratia payments, free prescriptions in England, and access to insurance.
I have instigated a review of those recommendations to see what more can be done. I know that hon. Members would love me to finish that review before Christmas. I will do what I can in the time available; I know that time is of the essence. The review will be conducted by Department of Health officials, but with the support of relevant clinical experts and external groups. The terms of reference should be in the Library. At this stage, let me put on record that I will place in the Library how the costs of implementing the Irish scheme in the UK were arrived at. I know that that has caused some concern, but I will come back to it, because time is very short.
I do not have time to go into detail on what happened in Ireland, but it is important to place on the record that in an article in The Irish Times—I will ensure that this is also in the Library—Brian Cowen, then Minister for Health and Children in the Republic of Ireland, and currently Taoiseach, confirmed that the Irish Government knew in 1995 that the Blood Transfusion Service Board had been negligent and had attempted to conceal that fact.
Mr Slaughter
Will the Minister deal with the two points that I raised in my remarks? First, do the terms of reference permit the inquiry body to consider the issue of hepatitis C in it widest sense—that is, to give it full parity, including in relation to the ex gratia payments of £12,800 a year for HIV? Secondly, given that she says that there are only a small number of recommendations to be addressed, why does not the new inquiry consider all those remaining issues, including the level of ex gratia payments?
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will admit to a certain amount of ignorance. I do not know what I can do, but I will do everything I can within what I am allowed to do. It is important to say that I am very keen to get on with this. The danger with an inquiry that extends its remit is that it drags on and on, and this issue has dragged on for more than 25 years.
No fault has ever been found here in the UK—a fact that has been tested in the courts. In 1988, a group of haemophilia patients and their families sued the Government of the day. They settled their case outside court, midway through the proceedings, as their solicitors had advised that they had very limited chance of success.
Whatever happened all those years ago does not change the facts of today. In the United Kingdom, decisions over tax and spend are made here in this Parliament. The decisions of the Irish Parliament, like those of any other national Parliament, have no authority here in the UK. The debate on contaminated blood products has continued for many years, and I would like to close my remarks by again offering my sympathy and expressing my deep regret at the events, and by saying how sorry I am that this ever happened.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the nervousness that follows her logic of not looking at other countries means that on a whole range of compensation issues the Government are now simply saying, “We are washing our hands of our responsibilities”?
Anne Milton
I am not washing my hands of any responsibility—I am taking full responsibility. I am determined to see this review completed by Christmas within the terms that I have laid out.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) summed up the implications of voting for the motion more eloquently than I ever can. We cannot commit to aligning our compensation payments to those made in Ireland, and we cannot support the motion.
This debate has been useful in two ways. It has given hon. Members a chance finally to let the depths of this tragedy be heard. It is absolutely dreadful that no time has been found to debate this issue on the Floor of the House before. Secondly, it has enabled us to discuss how we can move forward. I want everyone, including hon. Members and campaigners, to be able to make their views known and know that they will be taken into account. I want the review to be dealt with openly and honestly, with clarity, without party politics, with humility and with empathy.
I cannot turn the clock back and change events, but I will do what I can in the time I am in office to bring some closure to those affected.
Mr Robinson
I think the whole House would agree that this has been an outstanding debate and has very much justified the new process for nominating Back-Bench business. I hope that in future we will have many such debates on important issues, debated in the same spirit as Members in all parts of the House have shown today in discussing a non-party political issue.
In essence, the heart of the motion, which I will press, is that an apology is due to the victims. I know that it is very difficult for Governments to give apologies, and the Minister came very close to giving one in saying that she much regretted what had happened. If it had been given in the same spirit as the Prime Minister’s statement on the Saville report on Bloody Sunday, it would have been different, but it needed something a little more.
The second important element at the heart of the motion is the question of compensation. Some Members have said that they cannot vote for the motion because of the reference to Ireland, which is a foreign jurisdiction, and concerns about where we might go from there. However, whatever we had put in the motion, we would have had the same approach from the Government. Members can try to salve their consciences in that way if they want, but the stark fact remains that the victims feel that they need an appropriate minimum level of compensation. They have asked us strongly to stick with the motion and put it to Members. We are going to put a marker down on how we think the Minister’s review should come out.
I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity, and she has a long and distinguished history in the medical profession, but it is hardly an auspicious beginning for the Government to table an amendment intended to void the Back-Bench motion of its substance, then get their Whips up complaining to Mr Speaker about it, especially when it contains a figure that is out by a factor of three. The costs involved would not be more than £3 billion, as we learned from the distinguished hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who is a medical practitioner. He said that they would be more like £1 billion. I cannot imagine how the Government have allowed that figure, which is not just salient but material to the debate, to continue to be discussed without correction.
Anne Milton
I have said that I will place in the Library details of how those figures were arrived at. They came about not through a typo in Lord Archer’s report but through careful consideration. The comparison with Ireland is difficult to make because the circumstances of those receiving compensation there are different, but that is not the salient point of the motion—it is whether we should align ourselves with a scheme set up by Ireland.
Mr Robinson
That is not the central point of the motion at all; it is utterly irrelevant to the debate. The debate is about justice for the victims of a terrible disaster, and whatever we had put in the motion we would have had the same attitude from the Government, which after all is the one that we have had from all previous Administrations. When I opened the debate I said that that we now had a golden opportunity for the Secretary of State to break with the past. He bears no responsibility for what went on, unlike some of us, including me when I was at the Treasury and the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) when he was at the Department of Health. The Secretary of State had a golden opportunity to put the past behind us and say, “A great injustice was done and a terrible misjudgment was made.” Several Members have made it clear that the suffering of the victims and their families goes on, and he should have said that the Government would now take steps to correct it. To say that it would cost £3 billion when it would actually be less than £1 billion is, as I said, hardly an auspicious start.
Anne Milton
May I reiterate that recommendation 6(h) of the Archer report states that
“payments should be at least the equivalent of those payable under the Scheme which applies at any time in Ireland”?