Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Health: Contaminated Blood Products

House of Lords written question – answered on 10th February 2010.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Viscount Simon Viscount Simon Deputy Speaker (Lords)

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 28 January (WA 367), what representations were made in the letter sent by the Macfarlane Trust.

Photo of Viscount Simon Viscount Simon Deputy Speaker (Lords)

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 28 January (WA 367), what action they have taken arising from the letter sent by the Macfarlane Trust.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No0 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.

Photo of Baroness Thornton Baroness Thornton Government Whip, Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

The letter from the Macfarlane Trust suggested that comments I made during the second reading debate of the Contaminated Blood (Support for Infected Persons) Bill on 11 December 2009, were incorrect and that the Official Record should be corrected. I responded to the Macfarlane Trust on 5 February 2010, stating that my comments about insurance were based on advice that the Department of Health has received from the Association of British Insurers (ABI). The ABI stated that the general principle of insurance is that for voluntary insurance products, insurers must be able to offer terms that reflect the risk that an individual brings to the risk pool depending on, for example, the person's occupation, medical history and lifestyle. Depending upon the level of risk that an individual brings to the risk pool, the possible outcomes for someone applying for insurance could be:

standard terms and conditions; or no cover offered due to an unacceptable level of risk; or a higher premium due to increased mortality or morbidity; and/or partial cover due to increased mortality or morbidity.

This is consistent with my statement that in all cases, a person's insurability and the level of premiums are determined by the assessment of their individual risk. It is therefore not appropriate to amend the OfficialReport.

Recognition of the higher cost of insurance premiums was one of the factors taken into account in making the extra payments to those infected with HIV.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No0 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.