SCOTTISH ministers considered fighting early compensation claims by victims of the contaminated blood scandal in the courts because of concerns over soaring costs, historical Cabinet documents have revealed.
The newly-declassified papers from 2001 outline a "worst-case scenario" of a £20 million payout to 400 people and the creation of a precedent for compensation which could cause "immense future difficulties".
Susan Deacon, Labour's health minister at the time, said defending the claims would mean the Executive would look "unsympathetic" but she conceded this was her "inclination" because of the wider implications.
An inquiry which concluded in 2015, confirmed about 3,000 Scots are thought to have contracted hepatitis C or HIV, or both, through NHS blood products between the 1970s and the early 1990s.
Earlier this year, the Scottish Government pledged an extra £20 million of support over three years for those affected, with a series of payouts confirmed this week.
Deacon considered the issue in a note for the Scottish Cabinet in April 2001, the month after the High Court in England found in favour of a number of people who had been infected with blood supplied by the National Blood Authority.
The English cases were brought under 1987 consumer protection legislation but could have a bearing on 24 cases in Scotland being taken forward on grounds of negligence, it states.
The Department of Health in England, despite "strong pressure" from the health minister and her officials, had chosen not to appeal.
"The English judgment will obviously carry some weight," the note states. "There could be significant additional cases waiting in the wings – we estimate that more than 400 people in total are likely to have been infected with Hepatitis C through blood transfusions or haemophilia treatment.
"If we were to decide to settle with 24 of the current claimants who were infected after March 1988 and in respect of whom, following the English judgment, absolutely liability (sic) could be deemed to apply under the Consumer Protection Act, then the cost could be in the region of £1.25 million + costs.
"A worse-case scenario (sic) involving compensation to around 400 people might cost us £20 million."
It went on: "The danger, of course, if we get that far down the track, will be of having created a broader precedent for compensation, which could cause immense future difficulties right across the NHS. That is why I regard the Department for Health decision not to appeal the present case as being particularly regrettable."
The note continues: "In relation to the current Scottish claims, the choice is between letting the cases proceed through the courts and defending them, or offering settlement to the 24 cases which are analogous to those decided in England.
"I need more information and a better assessment of what is going on in England before taking a final decision on this. However at present my inclination is that because of the wider potential implications of the case, and not withstanding that we will look unsympathetic, we ought to defend the cases in court."
The Scottish Executive later came under pressure from the Scottish Parliament's Health Committee to give financial support to all those affected by contaminated blood, arguing there was a "moral right" to it.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here