House of Commons
Wednesday 22 May 1996
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Adjournment of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Burns.]
9.34 am
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me to open the debate. My purpose this morning is to draw attention to a grave injustice and to secure for its victims the humane ministerial response they crave. I hope that the Leader of the House will assist them, as I know he will want to do if he can, by asking the Secretary of State for Health for a helpful statement to incorporate in his reply to this debate.
Some wrongs are so patently clear that we ought not to have to campaign to put them right. One of the most glaring today is the unmerited extra suffering inflicted on people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C by NHS treatment. They were prescribed under the NHS--3,100 of them--contaminated blood products to correct the severe bleeding that people with haemophilia have to endure.
Hepatitis C attacks the liver and is potentially life-threatening. Current medical opinion is that up to80 per cent. of those infected will develop chronic liver disease. Of these, some 20 per cent. will develop severe liver problems such as cirrhosis and liver cancer. More than 50 of those infected by contaminated NHS blood products have already died and the death rate is accelerating.
Deaths caused by "new" Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease--CJD--cases are running at the rate of five a year. That is fewer than the deaths from hepatitis C caused in the past year by NHS treatment. In the case of CJD, there is no suggestion of NHS involvement; but if those infected with hepatitis C by contaminated NHS blood products had received even a thousandth of the media attention given to the CJD cases, there would be an insistent public demand for Ministers now to meet their plea for help.
This huge tragedy in the haemophilia community dates back to before 1986, when heat treatment was introduced to end the contamination of NHS blood products. But by then there had been mass infection among them with hepatitis C. In recognition of the scale of the tragedy, the Haemophilia Society launched a campaign in March 1995 for financial and medical help for those infected.
It is much to the credit of this House that there were right hon. and hon. Members of every party who immediately pledged their support and, as the Leader of the House will know, more than 260 Members of Parliament have now signed my early-day motion backing the campaign. Anyone who looks at its list of signatories
will see that the issue is treated by the motion not as one between right and left in this Chamber, but of right and wrong. Of very special help in promoting the motion has been the active involvement of the hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)--who co-chairs with me the all-party group of Members of Parliament now assisting the campaign--and of my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). I want to emphasise here that no one could possibly have done more to promote the cause we have espoused than the hon. Member for Hendon, South.
To sustain its campaign, the Haemophilia Society recently published the results of in-depth research into the problems and needs of people who were infected but are not yet seriously ill. The report, sent to the Department of Health, documents the damaging impact of hepatitis C not only on individuals but on whole families. It focuses on medical, social and financial problems and makes frightening reading. In case study after case study families are seen trying to cope with sickness, loss of income, loss of jobs and loss of independence. Individuals with the disease, while trapped in an uphill struggle to maintain their families, have to live day by day with what they know could soon become a terminal illness.
One of the most urgent needs now is financial help to loosen the vice of reduced earnings and increased costs. That is why the Haemophilia Society is calling urgently for cash grants from the Government for those infected and the dependants of those who have already died.
The society's plea does not, however, stop there. It seeks funding for appropriate treatment and counselling as well as clear guidance from the Department of Health on the management and treatment of hepatitis C. Again, more research by the Government is requested. While £1 million has been put aside for research into the prevalence, transmission and natural history of the virus, the Haemophilia Society also wants to see research into treatment therapy, more particularly combination therapy.
Other pressing needs are for a public education programme to explain the facts and dispel the myths about hepatitis C; and for the funding of recombinant clotting factors to replace plasma-derived products that caused not only the hepatitis C infection but the HIV infection among people with haemophilia. It is emphasised by the society that recombinant products are free of the risk of blood-borne viruses and would thus exclude any third tragedy for the haemophilia community.
The call for help from those with hepatitis C has to be seen in the context of what was done to assist the 1,200 people with haemophilia who were infected with the HIV virus by NHS treatment. The hepatitis C infection took place at the same time as the HIV infection. The cause was the same: contaminated blood products used in their treatment. The effect can be equally deadly. Yet those infected with hepatitis C and their dependants now receive nothing from a Government who provided £70 million in financial support for those infected with HIV and instituted a hardship fund--the Macfarlane fund--to give continuing support. The Government accepted their moral responsibility in the case of HIV. Now they have the same responsibility in the case of hepatitis C.
The fate of three brothers says it all about the depth of the injustice to the 3,100 people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C. All three brothers had
haemophilia. Two were infected with HIV by NHS treatment and the other with hepatitis C. All have subsequently died from the infections. The brothers with HIV received financial help from the Macfarlane trust and so were able to make some provision for their families. The brother who died from hepatitis C went to his grave having been denied financial help. He was thus unable to make any provision for the future well-being of his family. All three brothers became terminally ill. All died as a result of infection through NHS treatment, yet only two received help. For anyone to call that fair or even tolerable is to bark not just up the wrong tree, but in the wrong forest.
It may be argued that compensating the people infected with hepatitis C would take money away from patient care in the NHS. But in the case of HIV the payments made to those infected came from contingency moneys and this is what the Haemophilia Society is asking for now in the case of hepatitis C. It simply wants the terms of reference of the Macfarlane trust to be extended to include those infected with hepatitis C. Its claim is an extremely modest one measured against the pain and suffering inflicted on those for whom the contaminated blood products were prescribed and their families.
Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton):
Before the House rises for the Whitsun recess, we need to be reassured that the Government fully appreciate what the European Court of Justice has done, is doing and will--unless stopped--continue to do to the powers and laws of this justifiably proud nation state.
At last, the extent of the powers that we have allowed the court to have is being brought home to us all. We are to pay £30 million in compensation to Spanish fishermen who took and used British quota through the simple device of buying British-registered ships, which this British Parliament specifically said should not happen when we passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. We are threatened with an absurd 48-hour limit on the working week, which nearly all of us will have to follow despite the Prime Minister's specific and conceded opt-out of the social chapter at Maastricht. The ban on our worldwide export of probably the safest beef in the world is said by our European partners to be in accord with powers vested in them by the treaty of Rome, which they expect to be upheld by the European Court of Justice, which overwhelmingly supports the European Union against the nation states throughout Europe, not only Britain.
It is now becoming clear, although the matter does not receive much coverage in the media, that we have acquiesced in the creation of a power-hungry mechanism that appears programmed to destroy our national
sovereignty widely, deeply and permanently. This is not the thing we thought it was, and it is certainly not the thing we expected or wanted it to be when we voted to join, and when we voted to stay in, the Common Market.
We were told in the judgment of a court case in 1992:
Of course we knew when we joined, and when we decided to stay in, that we had surrendered some sovereignty to a trading bloc, and we knew and accepted the need for a court to ensure that there was an even application of Community law and to protect the nation states from abuse of power by Community institutions. But we did not realise that we were subjecting ourselves to a court that practised what the former warden of All Souls, the distinguished lawyer Sir Patrick Neill, called "creative jurisprudence"--interpreting conflicts expansively instead of restrictively, as our courts are accustomed to do.
The European Court of Justice has been steadily interpreting the treaty of Rome so that it is made to say what no one thought it said. The reason is that it has been acting less like a court of justice and more like a court with the political mission of political union. The court set out its new status in the passage to which I have already referred. The role of the court has changed: it used to operate in "a limited field", but it is now operating in "ever-wider fields". The European Court of Justice believes that the treaty has empowered it to become the engine of a federated super-state, a united states of Europe to be served by a supreme court. The purpose of a supreme court is to serve the written constitution of a state. It has become the powerhouse of that united state.
Sir Patrick Neill QC, in an address to the European research group--which is led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer)--said:
It is no surprise--with the philosophy of a supreme court to serve the constitution of a political union operating over and above nation states--that the European Court of Justice, which consists mainly of civil servants and academics from different political cultures and traditions, has been overruling our courts. It has been telling our courts what they must do and it has even been trying to overrule our democratically elected Parliament. Like pac-men, the European Court of Justice has been busy gobbling up the powers of nation states.
How has that position been developing? I shall give some examples. First, the European Court of Justice has altered the powers allocated to it--it operated in "limited
fields", but it is now operating in "wider fields". Secondly, the court has said that the treaties make rights and duties directly applicable to individuals without any need for national laws to authorise them--there was nothing about that in the treaties. Thirdly, it has ruled that a treaty has to be interpreted not merely according to the wording of its provision, but by reference to what it considers to be the spirit of the provision. That is dangerous and we pointed out that reliance would be placed on the preamble, which is a process that we do not accept in this country. We had long debates about Maastricht in the Chamber.
Fourthly, the European Court of Justice has held that directives, which the treaties do not make binding, must also have direct effect without the need for legislation to be passed by national legislatures. Fifthly, it has invented an action for damages against any state that is impertinent enough to fail to implement a directive--there is nothing in the treaties about that. Sixthly, the European Court of Justice now asserts a power to limit the retroactive effect of its judgments--again, there is no such power in the treaties.
Seventhly, the European Court of Justice is not satisfied with all that law making, and it is hungry for more power: it has extended its jurisdiction so that it can review the legality of decisions made by the European Parliament--there is nothing about that in the treaties. Eighthly, the European Court of Justice now allows the European Parliament to challenge the acts of the Council of Ministers--if that is not changing the law while pretending to interpret it, I do not know what is. As a result of that, the powers had to be enshrined in the Maastricht treaty.
Ninthly, the European Court of Justice has expanded its jurisdiction to rule on the decisions of the body that decides on association agreements between the European Union and other states, such as Turkey--there is nothing about that in the treaties. Tenthly, it has decided that it could assist in criminal investigations by national courts--there is nothing about that in the treaties. In 1992, it decided that national courts could be allowed to declare Community actions valid, but that they could not declare Community actions invalid. And so it goes on.
It appears that we must now be bound by a retrospective law, contrary to our traditions, and that we must pay ship money to those who, by any test of common sense, are not entitled to it. If we do not act, that will continue to go on and on.
What can be done? The Government's White Paper recognises that change is necessary, and I suspect that it has the complete support of every hon. Member.
The few Europhiles in the Chamber and in the country often say that the Euro-sceptics--who overwhelmingly want to see Britain remain in the European Union; there are very few Euro-sceptics who want to see Britain pull out of the European Union--are a minority. That is rubbish. The Euro-sceptics are an overwhelming majority not only on Government Benches and, I suspect, on Opposition Benches, but in the country at large.
There will be support for the Government's White Paper recommendations. There is reference to the functions of the court being further improved, to judgments giving cause for concern and to the European Court of Justice interpretation sometimes going beyond what was intended. The White Paper suggests that
damages should be only for serious breaches, that retrospectivity should be limited and that time limits should be introduced for the bringing of cases. It suggests that an internal appeals procedure should be introduced, subsidiarity clarified and procedures streamlined.
But limiting the expansion of powers is one thing; we need to cut back on the current powers of the court. On 24 April, the Prime Minister said to the Institute of Directors:
We should ensure that European law is no longer directly applicable to individuals and businesses within the European Union unless the nation states so legislate. Such a rule would prevent the European Court of Justice from extending European Union competence without the consent of the nations. If that extension is not halted, we shall not prevent the march towards a federal Europe to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is so opposed. The European Court of Justice must be denied all legislative functions. We must amend the 1972 treaty--by agreement if possible--to restrict the court's powers and to stop future expansion. We must do all that we can to ensure that the powers of the nation states are restored.
"As the Court of Justice has consistently held, the Community treaties established a new legal order for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the member-States but also their nationals. The essential characteristics of the Community Legal Order which has thus been established are in particular its primacy over the law of the member-States and the direct effect of a whole series of provisions which are applicable to their nationals and to the member-States themselves."
That is news to most of us.
"A court with a mission is a menace. A supreme court with a mission is a tyranny."
That prompts the question: do we need such a court? The European Economic Area treaty achieves free movement of goods and services, competition and deregulation without the need for a supreme court. The general agreement on tariffs and trade functions without the need for a supreme court. It is enough to have a simple procedure for settling disputes.
"I can tell you . . . I have no intention whatsoever of going down the route to a federal Europe."
On 11 May, the Prime Minister told the Scottish party conference:
"Yes, Britain must be a part of Europe and a partner of Europe, but a Europe of nations, not a united states of Europe, not a federal Europe. Once again I make this pledge: while I am Prime Minister, if others should opt for such a Europe, Britain will not be part of it."
Hon. Members will be heartened by those statements and their application to the European Court of Justice. We look forward to the memorandum that will set out in detail the proposals laid down in the White Paper. However, we must go further than the Government envisage. We should be able to see which judges are being too political or are acting in the national interests of their country, so the court's proceedings and the judges' reasons should be published. Why is that not being done already? We should require judges of the European Court of Justice to be more than just civil servants and academics. They should have experience as judges in their countries--only four out of the 15 present judges have such experience.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |