Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I wish to say a few words about my constituent, Andrew March, who is a victim of contaminated blood. He is not only a remarkable man and campaigner; he is the reason we are talking about this today, because he was the claimant in the judicial review that led to the written ministerial statement. That statement was correctly attacked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) today.

I am new to Mr March, in the sense that he has been a constituent of mine since May, as he lives in the Hammersmith and Fulham part of the constituency that I inherited. However, I have caught up quickly with what he has been doing over many years and decades. The easiest way for me to summarise his predicament and what he has done is to read from a letter that he sent to me on 23 July. He said:

“I was one of the young children at the time of the AIDS outbreak, and I had to cope with being told that I had HIV at the age of 9. It was extremely difficult to deal with back then—and the devastation was compounded by the stigma. Before that, I had already been ill from Hepatitis B, again, from blood products because of my haemophilia condition. By 1992, whilst I was studying at the Royal College of Music on a 4-year degree, I was informed that I had also been exposed to hepatitis C, and only 5 years later, I was given another blow when I was informed that I had been exposed to two batches of Factor VIII blood products taken from a donor who later went on to develop vCJD. I had been treated with over 110 bottles of this vCJD-implicated material being injected directly into my bloodstream.”

[Lorraine Fullbrook]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this very debate helps to raise awareness of those people suffering from hepatitis C contracted from contaminated blood products and helps to remove the stigma attached to hepatitis C? I am thinking of people such as a constituent of mine, who wishes not to be named but is suffering from hepatitis C1a, which is the severest form of hepatitis.

[Mr Slaughter]

I think that this debate does do that, and I am grateful for this opportunity to increase my own knowledge. However, I think that we need to move on to some very specific recommendations because, as the mover of the motion eloquently said, this is a time for action more than contemplation. That is exactly what Mr March did when he brought the judicial review in April, and the matter has been just been clarified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) described, in relation to the mistake that the previous Government made on the situation in Ireland. That was the error made by that Government. That was the finding of the judicial review, and it is what the Government are responding to today.

I shall not read from the judicial review, other than to quote its final paragraphs, because they again relate to Mr March. The learned judge, Mr Justice Holman, said that counsel for the claimant

“paid a warm but measured tribute to…Andrew March, ‘for his tenacity and balance in the asking of questions and soliciting of information, and not taking no for an answer when the reasons are not good ones.’ My impression is that that tribute is justified and well judged, and that the many other people interested in this cause owe gratitude to Mr March for his tenacity or persistence.”

I say again that Mr March has done that for many years, suffering as he did not only from his original medical condition but from the effects of the contamination.

Taintedblood, an organisation that has done a lot of excellent work in briefing us all and preparing us for this debate, states:

“The Under-Secretary of State for Health”—

the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton)—

“recently held a series of meetings with campaigners, the Haemophilia Society, the Macfarlane and Eileen Trusts, the Skipton Fund and others. In those meetings she demonstrated a new willingness by Government to face up to and deal with what has happened to the Haemophilia Community.”

Those organisations must be very disappointed today by the amendment that the Government attempted to move and by the written ministerial statement.

I welcome what is said in the terms of reference about hepatitis C, as has been mentioned. I want to clarify whether the Minister is offering full parity for hepatitis C sufferers with what AIDS sufferers experience, including the £12,800 per annum payments, and that that will be susceptible to the review.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The constituent whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned is the son of one of my constituents in Nuneaton. I want to mention the families of those affected by this disaster, because they have also had to bear a real burden in supporting people such as Mr March over the years. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the terms of reference that the Minister announced in her statement about supporting the families who have had to bear that burden?

[Mr Slaughter]

No, I definitely do not. I ask the Minister to clarify—if not now, when she makes her speech—whether the terms of reference will allow hepatitis C sufferers to be treated at least as HIV/AIDS sufferers are under the current scheme. I hope that she will do that. However, all that could have been done today. The limited amount that is offered in the review could quite easily have been announced today. If there had to be a review, I should have liked it to have been along the terms of Lord Morris’s Bill, which considered all the remaining provisions of the Archer inquiry and said specifically—this is the contentious part:

“When making the regulations the Secretary of State shall have regard to any comparable compensation schemes offered in other countries.”

The noble Lord’s Bill was a good Bill, but I would say—this is the only criticism that I would make of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West—that I think today’s motion goes a little too far. It calls specifically for parity with the scheme in Ireland. I do not think that it gives the Government sufficient room. I would ask the Government—this is the commitment that I would look for today—to widen the terms of the review and to reconsider all the matters that Lord Archer raised, including compensation. Even if the conclusion is that parity is unlikely with Ireland, where the situation is different even given the judicial review—that was suggested in the opening speeches—in the current financial climate we need to look at the levels of compensation that are paid.

I also think that the motion, while criticising previous Governments, could at least have acknowledged that the previous Government responded to the Archer review by making regular annual payments at a higher level, although I understand that my constituent and many others regard that as inadequate. I regard it as inadequate. We are looking, I think, for something between the two. The unfortunate thing about the Government response today is that it cuts off that option. The amendment and the ministerial statement do not allow the option of considering more generous compensation in the light of Lord Archer’s proposals. That is why I would have voted against the amendment and that is why I think it is wrong for the Government to have given false hope to sufferers and to have dashed that hope with their announcement today.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.