I now call Deputy Howlin. The Deputy has some 40 minutes to present his case.
Private Members' Business. - HIV Infected Haemophiliacs: Motion.
Unfortunately, this very important debate has already lost some 40 minutes of its time. Because I consider it to be an issue of grave importance, which is of interest to every Deputy in this House and to the community at large, I propose to curtail my contribution in order to allow other Deputies to contribute. I ask you, Sir, for permission to share my time tonight with Deputy Gregory.
You have heard the Deputy's suggestion of sharing time, is that satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann recognises the particular position of haemophilia suffers who are HIV positive and who have contracted AIDS. Dáil Éireann considers that the State has a particular responsibility to all AIDS sufferers and that the State must take into account that many haemophiliacs were infected with the HIV virus through blood products supplied, albeit unwittingly, by State agencies. Dáil Éireann therefore, calls on the Government to establish a trust fund of £400,000 per annum for HIV infected haemophiliacs. Dáil Éireann also calls on the Government, and particularly the Minister for Health, to ensure that every public health facility is made available to all AIDS sufferers.
There has been a certain amount of ill-informed comment about this motion since it was originally put down and indeed on the general subject of AIDS. Therefore, it is important to clarify a number of points at the outset. This is not a motion which seeks to discriminate against any category of AIDS sufferer or to treat one category as different from another. One of its primary aims is to highlight the plight of all AIDS sufferers and to spell out the need for a caring and efficient delivery of health services to them.
It is not a motion which calls on the Government to write a blank cheque. That would be irresponsible. One of the great tragedies of full-blown AIDS is that it is a virtual death sentence. We know that the people who contract full blown AIDS need help principally to live out their remaining days with dignity and with some prospect of making provision, no matter how meagre, for their next-of-kin. I believe that this motion has the support not only of the majority of the House, and that that includes Deputies from every party and the Independents as well as a considerable number from the Government back benches, but enjoys the support of the entire Irish community. In the motion, we call for the establishment of a trust fund of £400,000 for AIDS sufferers who have contracted the disease through their experience of haemophilia and that the full range of public health services and facilities be made available to all AIDS sufferers.
I will deal with the case on behalf of haemophiliacs who have contracted AIDS. The motion we have put down describes them as being in a particular position. I want to explain to the House why we see them as being in a particular position. As I mentioned earlier, nothing that I say should be taken to imply that they are in any sense more deserving of our support than are other AIDS victims — although this distortion has been suggested by some. However, we must all recognise that there are differences. First, the number of haemophiliacs likely to contract AIDS is finite and already known. We cannot say with absolute certainty what the number is, but in so far as it is humanly and scientifically possible to estimate, the risk of contracting AIDS from a blood product in Ireland has now been eliminated. Second, we are dealing with unfortunate people who have contracted a disease in public hospitals while availing of medication thought to be the best available for the treatment of their haemophilia. The treatment was prescribed and delivered to them in good faith and nobody could have been aware that the very methodology for treating one crippling and disabling disease could infect them with an even more deadly one. We must face the fact that haemophiliacs who have contracted AIDS or who have become HIV positive have done so as a result of their contact with blood products supplied in the main through State agencies. This fact alone gives the State a particular responsibility. I doubt if it can be described as a legal responsibility, but obviously that is a matter beyond my competence and for discussion and decision in another forum. As far as I am aware the blood products in question were supplied in good faith and all precautions thought necessary at the time were taken to ensure the purity of the product. Tragically, those precautions were not enough. There is, therefore, if not a legal responsibility, a moral responsibility on the part of the State, on this House and on the Government to respond to the needs of haemophiliacs who have contracted HIV or full-blown AIDS. Third, the majority of haemophiliacs suffer from other disabilities as a result of their underlying condition. Even before the discovery of AIDS, most haemophiliacs would have found it virtually impossible to get life assurance because of the risk attached to their hereditary condition. For all these reasons, it is not unreasonable for haemophiliacs to demand special provisions to assist them.
There are slightly more than 100 haemophiliacs in Ireland with the AIDS virus; so far, 16 have got full blown AIDS and seven have died. As I have said we cannot say with absolute certainty what the final number will be other than that it will be finite since the blood products available for the past number of years are now free of contamination. However, the scale of the tragedy is already immense, given the small size of the haemophiliac community. About one in every four haemophiliacs is infected in Ireland, a far higher proportion than in many other countries. Because of the very nature of haemophilia, which is a hereditary disease there are cases of more than one AIDS sufferer in the same family. So for the family there is a multiplicity of tragedies where more than one member, two or even three members of the same household, have the doubly disabling diseases of haemophilia which has already blotted their lifestyle and presented tremendous difficulties for them and the HIV virus which is a horrific prospect for them and a horrific difficulty for their immediate families to cope with.
The tragedy of AIDS and haemophilia has already been recognised in many other countries. Great Britain has established a £12 million trust fund and allowances are already available to ensure adequate dietary, mobility and attendance allowances for such victims.
Many of us will have heard of the fund that was established speedily and without political rancour or division in the UK where the Government, who can hardly be described as the most caring or compassionate Government on the other side of the water, saw fit to recognise the case of haemophiliacs and established a trust fund. Many of us will have attended the meeting last week to hear the positive results of that fund and the immense improvement in the quality of life for people suffering from the doubly crippling disease of haemophilia and HIV virus. It allows many of them to have a proper diet, a holiday — maybe their last — and appliances and facilities in the home they would not otherwise be able to afford. It allows them to avail of transport they would not otherwise be able to afford. It allows them to enjoy with some sense of dignity the final years of their lives.
Other countries have established similar funds. People who have suffered in West Germany have received substantial payments on an individual basis ranging as high as £127,000. Norway and Denmark have made substantial once-off payments. There is a trust fund in place in The Netherlands, and many other countries are currently looking at the provision of a trust fund. Therefore, there is nothing unique or innovative about the demands we are placing on the Minister's desk and the Government's desk tonight. It has been done in countries whose record of compassion is not as great as our own.
The European Haemophilia Society on 8 April passed the following resolution:
The European Haemophilia Societies call all member governments of the European Communities to recognise the uniquely tragic position of people with Haemophilia who have become HIV positive through the use of medically inducted blood products and to make immediate financial provision for them on an ex gratia basis as has already been done in Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom.
The Spanish experience is that a royal fund has been established to assist people in the same position in Spain. On 11 April the European Commission stated: "It is certain that a humanitarian approach to all such persons"— haemophilia sufferers who have contracted the HIV virus —"is highly desirable and the commission fully agrees with all the initiatives taken in this direction".
Against this background the refusal of our Government to make a similar concession is baffling. The Minister has the endorsement of many of his EC partners and the encouragement of the European Commission, ——
And his backbenchers.
—— most Members of this House and, I strongly believe, the whole community of this country who are compassionate and have seen the tragedy, evident to anybody, of people who admitted themselves to hospital for treatment for a disabling, crippling disease and who ended up with a double disease. It is all the more baffling when one considers the grounds on which this refusal is based. It appears that initially the refusal was based on principle or, at any rate, on a desire not to establish a precedent which might affect the Government's legal position with regard to liability. That argument makes no sense. For example, the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Health arranged for ex gratia payments in respect of children who had suffered the side effects of the three-in-one inoculation. The Government previous to this one established the Stardust Tribunal who recommended financial settlements in respect of the victims of that tragedy and their families without regard to the issue of liability. That argument does not wash. It cannot be argued that a settlement in this case would establish an undesirable precedent. In recent times that argument appears to have been dropped by the Government in any case. We now appear to be more interested in keeping the financial commitment involved to a minimum. It has emerged that the Government are now willing to make an offer, albeit one that falls far short of the demand of this motion.
The demand spelled out in this motion is a very modest one, as close to a minimum demand as it is possible to come. Those Deputies in this House who last week attended a meeting of haemophilia sufferers who are HIV positive would know there was a clamour at that meeting for a higher demand, but an argument was made in reasonableness that we would not demand the sky, we would make a modest demand but a demand that would have some impact on the quality of life of those suffering, not tokenism but something that would improve the quality of life of those people so tragically stricken with a doubly disabling disease. The demand of £400,000 spelled out in this motion represents 4p for every £110 we spend annually on our health services. Is that too much to ask for a group so tragically and uniquely afflicted for whom there is a clamour across this country?
Perhaps the Government would prefer to make a once-off contribution to a trust fund in order not to tie their hands in respect of future budgetary arrangements. We have no objection to a once-off payment but it would have to be sufficient to provide an income large enought to make the trust fund effective. A once-off contribution somewhere between £3 million or £4 million would be adequate, because that would generate interest and the fund would be ongoing and would not require topping up annually. Even that amount would represent a small commitment by the Government set against the overall size of their budget, even set against the extra revenue which has already flowed into the Government coffers this year. It was a case put that if the Government decided out of their revenue bonanza to invest £10 million for one year, assuming an interest rate of 10 per cent, that would give £1 million to a trust fund and you could have your £10 million back at the end of the year. That would be a meaningful sum to cope with the trauma, the difficulties and the dreadful situation of people who are trapped in this doubly disabling disease.
Obviously, whatever provision is made, there would have to be access immediately for those people who are suffering. Unfortunately, as I have indicated, some have died and the only certainty is that the number of people in this category will diminish because death will overcome them. We have to act on a basis of some urgency in order to grant them some measure of dignity and some improvement in their lifestyles literally before it is too late.
I want to say a word now about other AIDS sufferers. No one set out deliberately to get AIDS. That is a truism. AIDS is a debilitating, withering condition which destroys hope and morale long before it destroys life. Every AIDS victim or AIDS sufferer is a personal tragedy and there can be no discrimination between one and another. Health services must be made available to AIDS victims. AIDS sufferers must have all the State can provide to improve their medical condition and grant them medical relief.
The pain endured by AIDS sufferers and their families is such that no words of mine can begin to do justice to it. As a society which regards itself as civilised and as Christian we have an obligation to those who are suffering and who are in pain. We owe it to all AIDS sufferers to ensure that they suffer no stigma as a result of AIDS. We owe it to them that they should be as comfortable and as free from worry as it is possible for them to be, that they should have all the counselling and support necessary to enable them to face an uncertain future and that their last days should be spent with some semblance of dignity. We owe it to their families to ensure that they get all possible help to come to terms with the grief and loss involved. This is not happening.
The Minister's claim that this motion divides AIDS sufferers into categories rings extra hollow when we see the inadequate provisions for AIDS sufferers of all types in the community. There are many complaints about having to wait in queues, about inadequate provisions and the lack of immediate access to medication when it is needed. The Government have a committee working on the issue of AIDS and the delivery of health services. I understand the committee is to report to them next week. I hope the committee will not only make recommendations to improve the situation for AIDS sufferers but that the Government will respond in kind and provide money and resources so that this tragedy need not continue.
The Minister knows my views on his handling of the health services during the past two years. I have brought motion after motion before this House whenever possible. The Minister has run down the health services to an unprecedented degree and many health services are tottering to a standstill. I will not go into all the other aspects of his stewardship of the health services. We know the position in the Southern Health Board now and I could name a dozen hospitals suffering the trauma of his cuts.
One particular difficulty faces not only this country or Europe but the whole world. That is the plague of AIDS. We seemed to have had an immediate response to it. A campaign was waged with some urgency but that urgency seems to have gone from the debate. We seem to have decided we have done our bit and now everything can be on a low key. We do not have high profile warnings. It is almost as if there was a demand some 12 or 18 months ago to change our lifestyles and be aware, but now we can fall back into former practice as if nothing has happened. I call on the Minister when responding to address the whole condition of AIDS sufferers and to outline to the House the details of the ongoing campaign to attack this most horrendous plague which has to be faced and fought by all of us in every country in the world.
I know there is nobody in this House who would begrudge the provision of essential support, medication, counselling and help to all AIDS victims, but I fear that not enough is being done to put the resources and structures in place to ensure the effective delivery of the services I have outlined. I hope the rest of this debate, conducted in a reasoned and open atmosphere, will help to bring this condition to the light of day and that at the end of the debate tomorrow at 8.30 p.m. we will stand united as a community, not divided as politicians, in support of one group of people in our community who are suffering. I implore the Minister to think long and hard about the group of people we have talked about and to respond charitably and positively to the modest demand of people whose days are literally numbered. I call on the House, all parties and individuals, to support the motion in the names of the Labour Party Deputies.
I thank the House and particularly Deputy Howlin for allowing me the remaining minutes of his time to say a few words on this issue. I wholeheartedly support the Labour Party motion, which is on the same lines as a motion I tabled some time ago. I am glad to see that there appears to be widespread support among the Opposition groupings for the effort to get justice and fair play for haemophiliacs. I, too, have attended many of the meetings organised by the haemophiliacs, which were attended by some of the Minister's backbenchers. Every one of them agreed that this was a particularly tragic situation which needed particular attention.
On 9 February this year I raised this matter with the Minister at Question Time. His main argument is to be found at column 2065, Volume 386 of the Official Report. The Minister stated:
.... as I see it the Government have a responsibility to all AIDS victims to ensure that they are provided with the very highest level of services available.... We have to ensure that there is equity in the system.
The Minister has said on other occasions that no group could be treated differently. I have listened intently to the Minister in various interviews as well as in the House and this is his main argument.
The question of treating differently a particular group of people suffering from such a desperate disease as AIDS is an especially difficult question for me to answer as a Member who represents a constituency where there is a huge number of young people who suffered from the heroin plague of the early 1980s and who today suffer from an even worse plague, that of AIDS. Many of those young people in my constituency who are suffering from AIDS still live in the most dreadful poverty. It was that poverty which propelled them into the heroin nightmare.
In 1981 community leaders, social workers, clergy and all who saw the problem and brought it to the attention of the Department of Health were ignored for a considerable period. They were told the problem did not exist. The heroin nightmare as it was seen in that area of the north and south inner city then got out of control. The communities themselves took action. They formed the Concerned Parents Group and went to RTE to get the "Today Tonight" programme to highlight how terrible the reality was in their area. When surveys were carried out at that time we were told that among young people in flat complexes in the inner city there was a higher proportion of heroin addicts than in the worst ghettos of New York and other cities around the world that had known the heroin problem for years before.
I will go on to look at the facilities now available, even after that length of time, to people who suffer from heroin addiction and AIDS. The central question is how are the haemophiliacs unique and why should they be treated differently from other categories of people suffering from AIDS? AIDS is the horror, the nightmare disease of this part of the 20th century. A small group of people, in all about 100, were infected with AIDS as a result of medical treatment administered to them through the Department of Health. That simple fact makes them different and imposes on all of us a moral responsibility to respond to their plea for help. How can the Minister sustain his argument that he cannot be seen to be treating one group differently from the others? That argument cannot be sustained because one cannot escape from the starting point which is that the Department of Health treated them differently when, although unwittingly, they were infected with the AIDS virus through the administration of the Factor 8 substitute.
Let me return for a moment to the Minister's reply at Question Time to which I have already referred. The Minister said it was the Government's responsibility to provide the highest level of services for the 825 persons whom we now know to be infected with HIV. Let us look at the only hospital facility for AIDS sufferers, James's Street Hospital. Facilities provided there are virtually non-existent. I am told by people who work with people suffering from AIDS that these people are assigned to the corridors and hallways of the hospital to queue on a daily basis. If even five of the 52 prisoners suffering from AIDS turn up they, too, queue with the families, relatives and parents along with ten prison officers, two officers for each, in that grim scene. That is the highest level of facilities and services available at the moment from the Department of Health.
James's Street Hospital is lucky to have the only consultant working in that field. No other hospital has a consultant but what is incredible is that the doctor working with the consultant is there not because the Department of Health are employing him to be there but because he is employed by the AIDS fund, a voluntary charitable organisation. Surely the Minister will agree that the very least one could expect is that his Department would provide and pay the necessary medical staff in the only hospital facility to care for the unfortunate, tragic people who suffer from that disease today.
The same AIDS fund launched a scheme today to monitor mothers and babies infected with AIDS, a particularly difficult problem here. Should a voluntary group have to do this? The Minister may tell us that he has given some lottery money to this group, but that is not good enough. That voluntary group stated today in a press release that they want to take AIDS out of the overcrowded, overburdened clinics and create a one-to-one treatment and therapy facility, a far cry from the prisoners crowded into the black hole in Mountjoy in the most despicable conditions that one could think of. I doubt if they get equity.
The Minister may talk about the Government's responsibility. It is mostly talk but little action. The truth is that if one has AIDS in Ireland today one's best option is that available to the 40,000 jobless each year, to get out and go to Britain. It is, therefore, no surprise to hear that the Minister still refuses to respond in a positive way to the haemophiliacs. Even when we point to what other European countries have done, the Minister simply remarks, as he did at Question Time today, that most of the European Community countries do not have a scheme.
Let us look at Britain. In Britain the Minister for Health initially took the stand the Minister here is taking and did not agree that there was a particular case to respond to, but within a month he changed his mind and said on 16 November 1987 in the House of Commons at column 773:
As the House knows, the position under successive governments has been that while compensation may be sought through the courts, if there is a question of negligence there is no State scheme of no fault compensation for those damaged by medical treatment.
He continued:
The Haemophilia Society have, however, put to us a very powerful case that the position of haemophiliacs is wholly exceptional and should be treated as such. Their employment prospects and insurance status were already affected by haemophilia itself. The treatment that led to their infection was designed to help them to live as near a normal life as possible. The hereditary nature of haemophilia can, and in some cases does, mean that more than one member of the family can be affected.
The Government, having considered all the circumstances, have concluded that it would be right to recognise the unique position of haemophiliacs infected with the virus. We, therefore, propose to make an ex-gratia grant of £10 million to the Haemophilia Society to enable it to establish a special trust fund. It will be able to make payments to the affected individuals and families throughout the United Kingdom and to do so with greater flexibility than would readily be achieved in any other way.
It has been said, rightly, that all AIDS sufferers are innocent by virtue of the scale of the human tragedy that is involved. Guilt or innocence, therefore, is not an issue. The issue is the terrible ordeal of a small group of people, affecting more than one and even more than two in some families and even two generations of the same family. The issue is that the medical treatment given to the haemophiliacs by the medical services of the Department of Health was the source of their tragedy. That fact alone makes the case of the haemophiliacs unique.
I wish to comment on two points made by Deputy Gregory. When he talks about Britain making an allocation that is correct but Britain and Denmark are the only two countries of the European Community countries that have made a specific allocation for haemophiliacs suffering from AIDS.
How many do you require?
On the other point made by Deputy Gregory in relation to the treatment facilities for AIDS, I am satisfied we have adequate treatment facilities at present. We will have to develop our service because it is an increasing problem.
The Minister should go down to James's Hospital.
As regards James's Hospital, £700,000 of their allocation of £33 million will be spent on AIDS sufferers in the current year.
What is the delay?
It is wrong for any Deputy to come in here and suggest that patients suffering from AIDS should go to England for treatment.
I did not suggest that.
The Deputy did say it.
I stated the position as it is here.
There are no facilities.
It is also important to point out that AIDS — again there is a mystery about AIDS — is an illness that can be treated in any hospital. It consists of a number of illnesses involving kaprosisarcoma, pneumonia and neurological problems. All these illnesses can be treated in general hospitals around the country. Everybody who suffers from AIDS does not have to go to a specialist unit.
I propose an amendment to the motion proposed by the Labour Party in relation to haemophiliacs who have contracted AIDS. I move Amendment No. 1:
after Dáil Éireann delete everything and insert "reject any proposals which would inherently result in discrimination between individuals suffering from AIDS or the AIDS virus; Dáil Éireann further considers that all such persons should be treated with sensitivity and understanding and notes in this respect that a Working Group under the chairmanship of the Minister of State at the Department of Health is to report to the Minister for Health next week on any difficulties which persons suffering from AIDS or HIV may have in gaining access to health services appropriate to their condition; Dáil Éireann notes also the offer of the Minister for Health made to the Irish Haemophilia Society to provide £50,000 for counselling services and his willingness to make a contribution towards a Trust Fund which may be established by or on behalf of the AIDS sufferers."
All of us in this House have the deepest sympathy and understanding for those already carrying the heavy burden of haemophilia and who have now acquired the AIDS or the HIV virus as a result of medical treatment. I know, too, that none of us has any less sympathy for those who acquired the virus by whatever other means or indeed any less sympathy for the 53 babies who to date have been born with the virus. I also understand the motivation, sympathy, and emotion which underlies the wishes of all the Members of this House to do what is right in all of the circumstances with which we are now faced.
Against this background I am moving the Government amendment as a firm basis for seeking a reasoned solution to the issues raised. I believe these issues may be summarised as follows: (1) the moral and legal responsibility of the Minister for Health in relation to haemophiliacs who have acquired the virus through medical treatment; (2) the special service requirement of haemophiliacs; (3) other services and benefits which do not usually come within the ambit of the health services and (4) the establishment of a trust fund and the making of a contribution to it by Government.
The moral responsibility of the Minister for Health, about which I might add much has been loosely said and written, is quite clear. It is to provide the best possible health services for all sufferers regardless of their ailments or how those ailments were acquired and to provide these services equitably.
The Minister is making a bad job of that.
I cannot be more accountable for one sufferer as against another. It is my duty to treat each on the same basis.
The State and its agencies have, of course, a statutory involvement in relation to the treatment provided but the liability, if any, of the State and others who are involved in providing the treatment is, of course, a legal issue and therefore one which could be a matter for the legal process to adjudicate upon. I make this point because the House should know that an intention to serve legal proceedings on the State and on the others was issued on behalf of the Irish Haemophilia Society on 6 April 1989.
Because of our understanding of the special problems which may arise for persons already suffering from haemophilia and who have now acquired the AIDS or HIV virus, I established a working group under the chairmanship of Deputy Terry Leyden, the Minister of State at my Department, to consider and report to me on any difficulties which such persons may have in gaining access to health services appropriate to their condition.
This committee are finalising their report and I expect to have it and to act upon it next week. Finally, in relation to the establishment of a trust fund I have already made my position very clear in an interview which I gave to the "Today Tonight" programme.
How much money?
In that interview I clearly stated that if an appropriate trust fund was established the Government would make a suitable contribution to it and that remains my position.
What is suitable?
I am happy to report to the House that this evening I have been formally approached by the AIDS fund who informed me that they will establish a trust fund to assist AIDS sufferers. I wish to put on the record of the House that I am prepared to discuss with the AIDS fund a Government contribution of £250,000 in the current year towards such a fund when it is established. On the point of the amount of money involved, I have no doubt that the trust fund organised by the AIDS fund who are well known will have other contributors besides the Government. I believe that our response to the issues which are before us represents a comprehensive, thoughtful and careful response and should be supported by this House.
If the matter is dealt with in the manner proposed in the Labour Party motion, it would have implications I am convinced, not alone for the Government's broadly-based approach to the AIDS problem but also for such fundamental issues as the role of the State, and of the relevant State agencies, in relation to the safety and efficiency of medicinal products and of the rights and responsibilities of physicians in recommending the accepted form of medical treatment at a particular time. I should point out, of course, that the treatment given was essential for the very survival of the persons to whom it was being administered. This is a point that gets overlooked in some of the comments that are made regarding this issue.
Over the years, a number of measures were taken by the Department of Health and their agencies to protect the blood supply against contamination. In 1983, the Blood Transfusion Service Board introduced a policy of self-exclusion from donating blood under which persons in identified high risk groups would refrain from donating. This was done following a Council of Europe recommendation, even though there was no test available for the antibody to the virus and for screening donated blood at the time. Ireland was the first country in Europe to implement this recommendation; testing blood donations for antibodies to the virus commenced in 1985 as soon as a test became available. As a result, Ireland has not had a case of AIDS or HIV related to an Irish blood donation. This latter point is of particular relevance; heat-treated products only were used since 1985 — again as soon as it was shown that heat treatment kills the virus — and non-heat-treated products were withdrawn and self-sufficiency in heat-treated Factor 8 was achieved in 1987. Movement towards this commenced in 1980 but, prior to that, Ireland was self-sufficient in cryoprecipitate made from Irish donations. I would like to stress here that self-sufficiency in Factor 8 was the BTSB policy prior to the AIDS scare but despite this, Ireland is in fact only one of four countries which are now self-sufficient, the others being Norway, Finland and the Netherlands. It can be seen that the Department and the Blood Transfusion Service Board acted to protect the blood as the first priority in relation to AIDS and acted at all times to introduce newly discovered protective measures, as soon as it was possible to do so, towards achieving this end.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but the time has come to deal with other business. Perhaps the Minister would like to move the adjournment of the debate.
On a point of information, as the announcement in respect of the £250,000 to the AIDS Fund was not included in the text of the Minister's speech, can the Minister tell us where this money will go?
The Deputy is correct in saying that it is not included in the script. The reason for this is that it was only as I was coming into the House that I received a letter from the AIDS Fund.
Will it go to haemophiliacs or just to the AIDS Fund?
As I said, I will be discussing the contribution of £250,000 with the AIDS Fund.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify that for us tomorrow evening.
The Minister will have to make it an ongoing commitment.
Debate adjourned.