Health Committee, 15 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Official Report 165KB pdf

---

Hepatitis C

Item 5 is discussion of the hepatitis C evidence session that we are planning. Members will remember that an evidence session to explore the case for an independent public inquiry into the infection with hepatitis C of Scottish NHS patients was postponed earlier in the year because of the launch of a judicial review in the Court of Session on the very day that our evidence session was scheduled to take place.

It has taken some time for us to work our way through the ramifications of that. The situation has now been clarified and the committee can go ahead with the evidence session. Members will be aware that, although the Minister for Health and Community Care has said that he is prepared to give evidence, he added a cautionary note that he might be restricted to responding to questions in some areas because of the outstanding court procedures and that a Scottish Executive solicitor would attend the session to prevent him answering questions that would stray into sub judice matters.

As a compromise, I thought that it would be useful for us to ascertain the main points that we wish to raise with the minister, without prejudice to any additional items that might arise between now and any evidence session. In that way, we will get some indication in advance if any of those areas will cause difficulties that could result in the minister not responding at the meeting.

Depending on the availability of witnesses, any evidence session is likely to take place early in the new year.

I invite members to flag up issues that they would like to raise directly with the minister at any such evidence session.

I would like there to be an inquiry. I would like to ask the minister why we would avoid an inquiry because it would be a win-win situation for everybody. The tragedy is that so many people have lost faith in a certain part of the health service. Most people are not looking to litigate; when something does not go according to plan, all that they want is answers.

It has been flagged up recently that certain notes have gone missing, as if there were a conspiracy out there, but an inquiry would clear that up. For the sake of people who, through no fault of their own, received blood products in good faith from medical people who also acted in good faith, we need to know when the blood transfusion service became aware that things were not quite right and why we took blood from people in prison and so on.

We have to be careful not to go over ground that we have already covered. I advise members to look at the evidence that we have taken. You are saying that you would like to raise directly with the minister the politics of why there should not be an inquiry because it would make more political sense to have one.

Not having one would throw up more doubt that could be clarified.

On that point, the evidence session would be helpful for members who were not on the committee when we first looked at the matter. Some of the issues that Jean Turner raised—about the blood transfusion service and the evidence that it gave—were covered at that time. The whole point of taking evidence from the minister is to consider any new evidence. We should not go over old ground.

I urge people to look at what was covered in earlier days of the Health Committee, but members are entitled to ask questions.

People probably do not feel that questions have been completely answered.

That is a separate issue, Jean. It is worth looking at existing information submitted to the Health Committee.

We have to be absolutely clear that two years ago, in September 2003, the then Minister for Health and Community Care, Malcolm Chisholm, told the committee that he would hold a public inquiry if any new evidence became available. I want to ask the current Minister for Health and Community Care what new evidence since 2003, if any, has been brought to his attention. Surely that is the starting point.

I apologise if what I talk about has been gone over previously. Obviously, as a committee substitute, I am not totally up to speed with some of the Health Committee's previous work.

I thought that three areas were of interest. Jean Turner touched on the first, which is the country of origin and the direct origin of the individual blood source; that is, whether the blood came from a voluntary, paid or prisoner source. Another issue is whether different blood sources were used for different products. For example, was some blood used for transfusion and some used for products? What practical steps were involved in doing that and did that have any effect on the situation that arose?

The second area of interest is the timing of the information that was provided to those who were at risk of infection. A number of questions have been raised about the suggestion that although certain people in authority knew about the risk, there was a delay in informing those who had possibly been infected by the blood products. That area needs explored.

The third area, which I know about only from press stories, regards accusations about documents and evidence from previous investigations being destroyed. I wonder whether it would be possible to ask about that.

I suspect that, on that last question, the solicitor who will appear with the minister would be likely to say that the minister could not answer any question along those lines. I am not certain about that, but if there is an on-going court case, there might be an issue about that kind of question.

That might be the case. However, from my point of view, coming to the issue at this stage, what is important are the practical steps that led up to the situation that arose, the investigations that took place and what happened to the documents from those.

Those are the three important aspects from your perspective. Does any other member wish to raise a point, make a comment or indicate what they might like to ask?

Presumably, if something occurs to us at the time, we can question the minister.

Absolutely. This is to try to clarify matters in advance. For example, if a question on one of Stewart Maxwell's areas of interest cannot be answered because of a concurrent court case, we are as well knowing that in advance rather than finding it out on the day.

The focus must be on whether there is new evidence. Even in my short time on the committee in this parliamentary session, I have become aware of some of the work that the previous committee did. When Christine Grahame was the convener, we had sessions on the Irish situation, which is different from what happened here, and on articles in Sunday newspapers that purported to have new evidence, which we rebutted. However much we feel for the people who have the condition, we have been down that road. If we look at page 2 of the submission from Philip Dolan, does any of the information in the bullet points amount to new evidence? The minister needs to be challenged about that.

If any further questions occur to members over the next short period, can you ensure that they are communicated to the clerks? We want to try to clarify in advance whether anything is simply going to be struck out because it is considered sub judice.

That ends the business for the public part of the meeting, so I ask all members of the public to leave the committee room. Thank you.

Meeting continued in private until 15:16.