Health Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Official Report 103KB pdf

---

Hepatitis C

Item 4 is consideration of infection with hepatitis C as a result of national health service treatment. Witnesses were invited to the meeting and I ask them—[Interruption.] I understood that the witnesses would be here, but I am advised that they are not. Members might be aware that we face a difficulty in relation to this agenda item. In an action against the Scottish ministers and the Lord Advocate, a petition for judicial review has been lodged in connection with the alleged failure of the Scottish ministers to hold an inquiry into the deaths of persons infected with hepatitis C. The subject matter of that action would, in essence, be the same as that of this agenda item. According to rule 7.5.1 of the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament,

"A member may not in the proceedings of the Parliament refer to any matter in relation to which legal proceedings are active except to the extent permitted by the Presiding Officer."

The committee received legal advice that it is technically arguable that we could proceed with the agenda item—but only technically, because we have no idea whether a date for a hearing has been fixed. In any case, the Minister for Health and Community Care has indicated that he has been advised that he should not attend the meeting to answer questions, specifically because of the court action that has been put in place.

The circumstances change markedly the atmosphere and climate in which we would proceed with the item. Members of the committee might wish to comment, but my view is that it would be unwise of the committee to proceed with any part of the agenda item. If we were to proceed, we would be in danger of being in breach of the standing orders of the Parliament. In any case, we would achieve only half of what we wanted to achieve and there is no guarantee that we will be in a position to question the minister on the matter in the foreseeable future. In view of the circumstances, I recommend that we do not proceed with the agenda item and I invite comments or questions from members.

I agree with the convener's recommendation. It is perfectly clear that if legal proceedings are active—as far as we are aware, it is very likely that they are—it would not be appropriate to proceed.

I agree with the convener and Mike Rumbles. The committee would be in breach of standing orders if it proceeded with a matter that is being considered by the court and is therefore sub judice—I assume that that would be the case and I ask the convener for clarification. We ought not to discuss the matter further.

If a hearing date has been fixed, we would be in breach of standing orders if we proceeded—there is no question about that. Do members agree to the recommendation that we postpone the evidence-taking session until the position has been clarified or settled one way or the other and the matter can be dealt with in a more proper fashion?

Members indicated agreement.