My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the Haemophilia Society.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering giving further help to haemophilia patients infected with hepatitis C from contaminated National Health Service blood and blood products and to the widows of those who have died.

My Lords, as I have said previously, the Government have great sympathy for the pain and hardship suffered by the widows and dependants of those inadvertently infected with hepatitis C. But, as we have made clear repeatedly, the ex gratia payments scheme is designed to alleviate the suffering of people infected with hepatitis C and not to compensate for bereavement.

However, I can announce today that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and her counterparts in the devolved administrations have agreed to extend the period when claims can be made to the Skipton Fund on behalf of deceased patients by relatives or dependants. This means that the relatives or dependants of a person infected with hepatitis C through NHS blood and blood products who died after 5 July 2004, which is when the scheme became operational, will now be eligible to make a claim.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Is he aware that 1,142 haemophilia patients have now died from being infected with HIV and hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood and blood products, making this its worst ever treatment disaster?

My noble friend told me on 11 December 2003 that Ministers,

"do not consider that a public inquiry is justified".—[Hansard, 11/12/03; col. 937.]

Is that still their position, despite mounting concern about the handling by in-house inquiries of the important issues raised—as former health Ministers—by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Owen?

Can my noble friend say when the appeal system for the Skipton Fund will be operational; and is he aware that for it to have been ministerially decreed to deny hepatitis C widows the financial help available to HIV widows is widely seen as unjust and morally indefensible?

My Lords, I am well versed in the noble Lord's concerns in this area and I pay tribute to his persistence. But it is important to stress that, despite the Department of Health's decision to make ex gratia payments, we do not accept that any wrongful practices were employed in relation to inadvertent infection of blood which led to hepatitis C, and we do not consider that a public inquiry is justified as we do not believe that any new light will be shed on this issue as a result.

I acknowledge that the appeals system has been rather slow to establish the appeals panel, but it is now at the point where the NHS Appointments Commission is about to appoint members to the panel. We know, regrettably, that 57 applicants have indicated that they wish to appeal. I will certainly be pressing for this process to take place as quickly as possible.

My Lords, do the Government intend to publish a review of the whole sad story of contaminated blood products and of the haemophiliacs and others who have been infected with HIV and hepatitis C? Is the Minister aware that after my long perusal last year of a large number of files that passed across my desk on this subject as Secretary of State for Health, I was able to confirm, as I had been warned, that all the papers dealing with contaminated blood products have been destroyed? How can the review possibly be comprehensive and tell the whole story if the key papers on how these infections reached these patients have been pulped?

My Lords, let me reassure the House that there has been no deliberate attempt to destroy past papers. Officials have established that during the HIV litigation in the 1990s, many papers from that period were recalled. We understand that papers were not adequately archived and were unfortunately destroyed in the early 1990s. Officials have also established that a number of files were marked for destruction in the 1990s. Clearly, that should not have happened. When it was discovered that files had been destroyed, an internal review was undertaken by officials. The results of that will be made known as soon as possible. I know that the noble Lord has been in correspondence with the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health and I understand that an answer will be sent to him on some of those issues as quickly as possible.

My Lords, I also declare an interest as a vice-president of the Haemophilia Society. Why are we not as generous as Canada in helping those unfortunate people? Can the Minister reassure the House that CJD is not also a problem for those unfortunate people?

My Lords, there is a difference between the position in Canada and in the United Kingdom and it is important to recognise that distinction. The awards being made in Canada follow a class action brought against the Canadian Government. A settlement agreement was reached with the federal government and, as such, the payment structure was based on claims for punitive damages. Subsequent inquiries found that wrongful practices had been employed and criminal charges were laid against the organisations, including the Red Cross Society, who were responsible for screening blood. There was no such wrongdoing in the United Kingdom and it is unfair to compare the two schemes. I will look into the latter point that the noble Baroness raises and write to her.

My Lords, my noble friend uses the phrase "reassure the House", but is not one of the issues here the need to reassure the public, particularly those who feel very threatened when they are offered blood transfusions? Is there not a need for the Government to show care and compassion to these most unfortunate people?

My Lords, the Government have shown care and compassion for those who are infected with hepatitis C. The scheme that is the subject of the Question was introduced by this Government. It was announced in 2003 and we are moving to make payments to people who were alive then and infected with hepatitis C. We have now spent well over £80 million in compensating them to help to alleviate their suffering.

My Lords, do the Government not accept that whatever has been done here, they have given the impression of it being legalistic and slow and not being compatible with the needs of a very similar group? Will the Government give us an undertaking that that will not be the attitude in any future case?

My Lords, let us go back to the basis of the scheme. As I have made clear repeatedly and repeat again today, the infection of people with hepatitis C was inadvertent. Nothing could have been done at the time with the technology available to assess the blood for that level of infection. The blood service did nothing wrong. We as a Government have put in place a scheme to alleviate the suffering of people who were alive after the scheme was announced in August 2003 to provide help for them. We have extended that scheme today in the announcement that I have made, so that the dependants of people who died after the scheme came into operation will also be eligible to make a claim.

My Lords—

My Lords, we are well into the 25th minute. We must move on.