Everyone who has become infected with HIV deserves our sympathy and support. There is one group of people, however, who I would argue deserve Government financial provision because their personal tragedy has been a direct result of their use of our national health service. It is hard to believe that anyone in the land would begrudge payments to those individuals who have become HIV antibody-positive and will develop AIDS as a result of contaminated blood or tissue transfers under the health service.

As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may know, I have taken an interest in the development of public policy on AIDS over the years and, with the support of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People—who was then a junior Minister at the Department of Health—I introduced and secured the enactment of the AIDS (Control) Act 1987.

Edinburgh has a particular AIDS problem. Transmission of the virus has largely been through the use of drugs. I know of a number of people in my constituency who are either HIV-positive or who have gone on to develop AIDS. It was only in October this year that I discovered that one of my constituents had become infected as a direct result of a blood transfusion.

My constituent was rushed to hospital to have her first child. It was necessary in the course of the birth for her to have a blood transfusion. That was in 1984. Not until 1989, after she had had a second child, did she discover that she was HIV positive as a direct result of a contaminated blood transfusion at the time of the birth of her first child.

It is a tragic story when anybody is infected, but everyone's heart goes out to people who become infected through the national health service. My constituent developed the symptoms of AIDS over the years without knowing that she was HIV positive. Only through her work with a voluntary Church group, set up to work with, help and support people with AIDS, did she begin to sense that the symptoms she was showing were not dissimilar to those about which she was learning in her work with that group.

My constituent is now in hospital. I hope that she will not be there for long. Fortunately, neither of her children or her husband has become infected. Like others in her position, regardless of how they have become infected, it is an extremely private matter. The vast majority of people who are HIV positive wish to retain the knowledge as a secret to themselves or to close friends and family.

As a result of the overwhelming need for justice in this matter, the Minister should be aware that a group has been formed of non-haemophiliacs who have become HIV positive as the result of an NHS blood transfusion or tissue transfer. That group was established at a meeting in Merseyside last week. Its chair and spokesperson, elected at that meeting, is Davy, and he can be contacted through a solicitor named Brian Donald of York place, Edinburgh, telephone 031–556 7951. Davy is in the Public Gallery today listening to the debate. I hope that he will hear a positive response from the Minister later.

According to Government statistics, 37 people are alive in the United Kingdom in that position; 25 others have already died. Most of them were infected before the National Blood Transfusion Service began screening donations in October 1985, although at least two have become infected since then owing to the window period between infection and sero conversion.

The House will remember that in December 1990 the Government finally took the decision to make provision for 1,217 haemophiliacs infected with HIV through the blood product factor 8. An out-of-court settlement was made, bringing the total sums provided to £76 million. It took five long years of campaigning for haemophiliacs to see justice done, though many people were not convinced of the adequacy even of that settlement.

We are now asking for equal treatment for non-haemophiliacs infected with HIV as the result of an NHS blood transfusion or tissue transfer. As this group of people is much smaller than the number of haemophiliacs, the sum required would be correspondingly less, perhaps £4 million.

The Government have given a number of reasons so far for not providing compensation for non-haemophiliacs. They say that they cannot distinguish between infected non-haemophiliacs and other victims of medical accidents and that making provision for them would set a precedent for the piecemeal introduction of no-fault compensation. That is an irrelevant distraction. We are arguing not about no-fault compensation, but that non-haemophiliacs and haemophiliacs should be given equal treatment.

Last year, the Government were careful to insist that they were not providing compensation to haemophiliacs but simply making ex gratia, out-of-court settlements. In that way, they avoided setting precedents for no-fault compensation. We demand the same for non-haemophiliacs, which would also not set such precedents. One respect in which infected non-haemophiliacs differ from other victims of medical accidents is precisely that a precedent has been set for making provisions for people infected with HIV through NHS blood and tissue transfers.

The Government have given many reasons for distinguishing between haemophiliacs and non-haemophiliacs, but they are all totally unconvincing. They have argued that haemophiliacs were seriously ill before they became infected, but, by definition, many non-haemophiliacs were also ill before they became infected. Some of them received tissue transfers—those are rather exceptional—and blood transfusions precisely because they were ill with diseases such as leukaemia. The Government's arguments are nonsense, because there is no reason to make a distinction on that ground. What does it matter whether a person receives a blood transfusion because he has leukaemia or because he has had a car accident?

Secondly, the Government have argued that there is likely to be more than one infected haemophiliac in a family. Haemophilia is genetic and, as a result, there may be more than one in a family. Although HIV is not genetic, it can be transmitted from mother to child and certainly between partners, so there is a real risk that there may be more than one HIV-positive non-haemophiliac in a family as a result of a contaminated blood transfusion.

Thirdly, the Government have argued that a distinction between haemophiliacs can be made on the ground that, because of a haemophiliac's illness or condition, he or she is unlikely to have a well-paid job and therefore be able to afford adequate insurance. Again, a substantial proportion of non-haemophiliacs who received compensation were not in highly paid jobs and did not have insurance to protect them against the prospect of eventually developing AIDS as a result of a blood transfusion contaminated by HIV.

Those arguments are totally spurious. There is no valid, logical ground for distinguishing between infected haemophiliacs and non-haemophiliacs. That has been accepted by other Governments, such as those of Canada, France, Denmark and Western Australia. Although it may have taken them a little while to get there, they have all recognised that a distinction between infected haemophiliacs and non-haemophiliacs cannot be justified. The Haemophilia Society has also made that point.

One of the reasons why the haemophiliacs achieved success was that they were organised and had a society to campaign on their behalf. The society never intended to succeed to the exclusion of non-haemophiliacs. There is no justification for drawing a ring fence—to use the technical jargon—around the haemophiliacs. We have to draw a ring fence, but it must be drawn around everybody—non-haemophiliacs and haemophiliacs—who has become infected as a result of a blood transfusion under the national health service.

No amount of compensation can make up for the enormity of the personal and family tragedies involved, but the money can help to make life easier and more comfortable for those who are still alive. The money can help the families, especially the children, of those who have died as a result of AIDS.

There are good reasons for pursuing the issue until the Government recognise the justice of the case. I tabled an early-day motion which has all-party support and I emphasise that this is an all-party campaign. The motion now has 234 signatures and is a powerful demonstration of the support of Parliament for non-haemophiliacs. Hon. Members are overwhelmingly of the view that the Government's position is untenable and that they need to think again. There is no justification for continuing to distinguish between haemophiliacs and non-haemophiliacs.

The Minister has a chance this afternoon to rectify the mistake made last December when the Government announced that they would provide compensation for haemophiliacs. That was an error of judgment because the announcement should have included non-haemophiliacs. I have given the figure for the number affected. The Government figure may include one or two more people, but even if there are a few more, the total number is substantially lower than the number of haemophiliacs affected. There can be no ground for resisting the argument on the basis of financial considerations, as the Minister knows.

I have sought to demonstrate that the grounds for the Government's argument are entirely spurious. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to put the matter right. The issue will not go away and the sooner that we get an announcement that justice will be provided for the non-haemophiliacs the better.