Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Alun Michael Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dorrell]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is not for me to comment on the way in which the negotiations between him and the Government proceeded, but unfortunately, that is not the question on which the House is being asked to decide. I return to the proposition that today is different from normal political days in the House, because the House is being asked to make a decision. It is being asked to decide whether the Government should be committed to align compensation payments with those currently payable in Ireland, and I do not agree with that proposition. I shall vote against it—albeit with a heavy heart, because I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the context and the history of these matters. The motion is not about the context and the history, however; it is about what happens next. In the week before the comprehensive spending review, it would not be sensible to agree to the commitment of £3 billion to align our arrangements with those in Ireland.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman, with all his ministerial experience, accept that the House—individual Back Benchers and Ministers—is being asked to consider the human impact and the ways in which that can be alleviated? Individuals and families have been devastated by the impact of contaminated blood—not only the medical impact but the social impact and the undermining of family confidence. Can we focus on that in coming to a decision in the debate?

[Mr Dorrell]

I absolutely agree with a huge amount of what the right hon. Gentleman says. That is why I believe that the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Minister offers a sensible way forward. I said earlier that I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Coventry North West said, until he got to the last couple of minutes of his speech, when the Minister asked him whether he was prepared to sign up to the terms of reference of what the Government propose to do if, as I hope, the House rejects his motion. The Government are proposing to set up not a committee to think about this matter in the abstract, but a specific inquiry to report before the end of the year. The inquiry will review

“the level of ex gratia payments made to those affected by hepatitis C”

and—this will answer the point raised earlier—take into account the comparison with ex-gratia payments made in the UK to those infected with HIV. It will also review

“the mechanisms by which all ex-gratia payments are made”,

which was a specific recommendation in the Archer report. It will consider the provision for insurance—which has also been widely discussed in this context—and the issue of prescription charging, which Archer also recommended. It will also review the provision of and access to

“nursing and other care services in the community”

for those affected.

I assume that Government are not asking the House to reject the motion and simply carry on as though nothing had happened; I certainly will not do so. We all accept the context, but I would ask the House to consider carefully whether, instead of committing £3 billion to aligning our payments with those of Ireland, a better proposal would be to set up the review that the Minister recommends in her written statement, with the terms of reference that I have just outlined, in order better to meet the pressures that the hon. Member for Coventry North West rightly says are a human tragedy to which the House should respond.