Official Report 166KB pdf
Agenda item 3, on haemophilia and hepatitis C, is the substantive part of our public business this morning. Committee members and others will recall that we have received two petitions on the subject. The first of those petitions, from the Haemophilia Society, concerned the need for a public inquiry into blood products and the fact that a number of haemophiliacs contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood products. The second petition, from Mr Thomas McKissock, took a more general approach and concerned a number of people who contracted hepatitis C through a number of other national health service treatments.
I am happy to go directly to questions. Perhaps it would be useful if I mentioned that with me are Doctor Aileen Keel, the deputy chief medical officer, and Christine Dora from the health department, who was one of the lead officials involved in compiling the report on hepatitis C and heat treatment, to which the convener referred. Any of us would be pleased to answer questions from the committee.
Okay—I will kick off the questioning. The internal inquiry was set up, basically, to consider two key issues, the first of which was whether the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, or the health service in general, had been negligent in the process of giving people with haemophilia blood products that subsequently proved to be contaminated. Secondly, the inquiry was concerned with human interaction—how information was given to patients and the impact that that had on patients. It would be fair to say that, on the second point, the Haemophilia Society felt that your report had been "thin" and "incomplete". Philip Dolan, in his evidence to the committee, said:
You have raised a number of points, which I will work through.
We all know of cases where clinicians withhold information for what they consider to be good reasons, albeit that they may be misguided in doing so. Despite what you say, the evidence we have received from individuals and representatives of the Haemophilia Society is that, although there may not have been a systematic approach to withholding information, individuals not only were being tested without their knowledge but were being unknowingly infected. They were therefore at a small risk of infecting others. Do you feel that your report adequately covered the fact that, in certain cases, that happened?
You asked whether the report that I commissioned addressed adequately the facts. In so far as I am able to reach a judgment about what is, by definition, historical information, I believe that the report does cover that area. It is worth reminding ourselves that we are dealing with events that took place, in some cases, more than 15 to 20 years ago. While considerable effort was made to examine, record and identify events during that period, it is extremely difficult for any of us to go further than the report went in recording the sort of information that was shared.
You gave us information about hepatitis sufferers who are also haemophiliacs. There was another petition from Mr McKissock, who lives in Cumnock in the constituency of my colleague Cathy Jamieson. Sufferers such as Mr McKissock were not considered in your report because it is specific to haemophiliacs who have contracted hepatitis C. Will you explain why your report is so specific?
Margaret Jamieson has raised an important point. The report examined a specific issue, which I took seriously when it was first raised: the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service should have done more than it did during the 1980s to reduce the risks to haemophiliacs being treated with blood products. The remit is specific on that point. I gave a clear commitment to examine the specific allegation that was made and that is what the report did.
Mr McKissock is suffering greatly. I do not know the prognosis, but I know from Cathy Jamieson that he is in poor health. Obviously, his case is not alone. Will you consider such cases separately in an annexe to your report on haemophiliacs who have contracted hepatitis C? People need to know.
Cathy Jamieson has been active in bringing attention to Mr McKissock's case and I am aware of it. I wish to raise two strands in that regard. Successive Governments in the United Kingdom have generally held to the view that compensation is not offered in cases of non-negligent harm. Individuals have suffered adverse effects through medical treatment for various reasons. Any change to the position on compensation in general would have to be considered carefully and fully. We touched on that in a parliamentary debate a few weeks ago. If there are specific circumstances relating to Mr McKissock's case that ought to have been addressed more fully, I will consider them. However, I am not sure what could be added to a historical examination of the case—as distinct from the question of any future action.
You will recall that the committee asked for your report to cover haemophiliacs and non-haemophiliacs who had contracted hepatitis C. We have yet to receive any response explaining why you decided to consider only haemophiliacs.
The Executive officials may be able to comment further on the matter. However, with respect, the report did not confine itself to haemophiliacs. It examined the development of events and the treatment of blood and blood products during a specific period. That examination is relevant to anyone who received blood or blood products during that period.
But your report is on "Hepatitis C and the heat treatment of blood products for haemophiliacs in the mid-1980s", in relation to hepatitis C and the activated factor VIII product. It is clear that your report focuses only on haemophiliacs.
Perhaps Dr Keel can comment.
The remit for the work was proposed by the Haemophilia Society, which was keen to explore whether any negligence was attributable to the SNBTS or any other part of the health service in trying to produce a hepatitis C-safe product in Scotland, and whether negligence had led to Scotland being slightly behind England in achieving that. The report concluded that that was not the case and that there were justifiable reasons why it took Scotland longer to get to the same point as England. In fact, Scotland overtook England, as a hepatitis C-safe product became available for all haemophiliacs in Scotland, which has never been the case down south.
So, you considered the issue because an organisation raised it, but the views of individuals who raised the issue with the Parliament were not considered.
It is important to remember that a number of people who have been adversely affected through blood transfusions and the use of blood products fall outwith the specific scope of the report because the report examined in considerable detail the specific allegation that the SNBTS could and should have done more over a certain period with regard to the use of factor VIII. In no sense does that negate discussion of people in other circumstances who were affected; indeed, concern was expressed during the parliamentary debate that many different circumstances and cases were becoming muddled in the course of the debate. In contrast, the report is very clear about the cases and circumstances that it deals with. I stress again that I am not suggesting that the cases of other people who were affected, during other periods and through other treatments—the report was specifically on blood products and not blood transfusions—should not be included in the wider debate on whether compensation should be offered in cases of non-negligent harm.
Those who have contracted hepatitis C who are non-haemophiliacs feel that they have been forgotten in your report, although they believe that they have as just a cause to be addressed by the department as others have. The terminology that is used in the report suggests that they do not warrant a mention. That concern must be addressed. We must speak for everyone who is suffering from hepatitis C.
Let us return to the main question. The closer I come to this debate, the more strongly I feel that it should move beyond the issue of negligence and on to the question whether justice dictates that the people who have been affected by contaminated blood or blood products should receive some form of no-fault compensation or financial assistance.
I welcome the fact that Nicola Sturgeon has highlighted and recognised the distinction between the report that we have been discussing and cases that fall under the wider issue. It is important to keep making that distinction. People who fall outwith the scope of the report are by no means forgotten.
Totally relevant.
It is, of course, relevant. It is important to stress that it is the only exception. It was made in a particular period by a previous Administration. Obviously, I cannot answer for that judgment. There has been much speculation and much discussion and analysis of why that judgment was reached. At the time that HIV/AIDS came to public notice, there were enormous and different reactions. A relatively small number of people were affected. As Nicola Sturgeon said in Parliament a couple of weeks ago, HIV infection was virtually a death sentence. Although I stress that I have no truck with this analysis, the prevailing view was that some people were the innocent victims of HIV infection, who had been infected not because of their lifestyle, but because they had received a blood transfusion. The decisions taken at that time were heavily value-laden and affected a much smaller number of people.
I do not dispute any of that analysis of why the original decision was taken. However, the minister has hit the nail on the head. The question is: where should the line be drawn? I cannot understand the justification for drawing the line between HIV and hepatitis C. One person may have contracted HIV through contaminated blood and their life may have been absolutely devastated; that person now has access to financial assistance. Someone else—possibly on the same day, in the same hospital, and from the same batch of blood—may have contracted hepatitis C instead of HIV. That person's life has been devastated as well, perhaps just as much as that of the person with HIV, but that person is denied financial assistance. Whatever the reasons for it, that is a glaring iniquity. Does the minister not agree that that is indefensible?
I would be interested to hear from Nicola Sturgeon or other committee members where they would draw the line, and—
What other cases are being pursued—
Let us hear what the minister has to say.
Well, people—
No—let us hear what the minister has to say.
Are we talking about haemophiliacs? Margaret Jamieson has rightly pointed out that people who are not haemophiliacs have contracted infections through infected blood or blood products. Are we talking just about people who have been infected by blood and blood products? Or—following a point that Mary Scanlon raised in the debate—are we talking about people who have been infected through, for example, surgery? Are we talking just about people who have been infected by hepatitis C when that infection was not known about or understood? Or are we talking about the period when knowledge was emerging but treatment was not in place? Or are we talking, much more widely, about the many individuals who, sadly, are affected by medicines or medical treatments and have an adverse reaction as a consequence?
Let us have that debate.
Minister, when the committee first asked you, some months ago, to extend your original report, it was because we wanted to have that general debate.
Can I just ask, very briefly—
No, I want to move on to Janis Hughes and Mary Scanlon, who have questions related to compensation. I think that those questions will elicit the answers that we want from the minister.
I doubt it.
I wanted to follow up on Margaret Jamieson's point. We often hear about the 317 people with haemophilia who have contracted hepatitis C through blood transfusions. How many people have contracted hepatitis C through routine blood transfusions or routine surgery, as Thomas McKissock did? Whatever the final outcome of the inquiry, will it apply equally to the Thomas McKissocks of this world? If not, could there not be a challenge based on the European convention on human rights? There would be discrimination between two groups equally affected by hepatitis C.
Mary Scanlon spoke about the outcome of an inquiry, but I am not entirely sure which inquiry she means. The report that we have discussed this morning has been completed. Were you talking about the committee's inquiry?
Yes.
The Scottish Executive has made clear its general policy on this matter on a number of occasions. There are—as at any time—a range of individuals in a range of different circumstances whose cases are at various stages of consideration in the Scottish courts. It would not be for me to comment or speculate on any cases that are a matter for the courts.
I just wanted an idea of the scale of the problem. How many people are in Thomas McKissock's category?
I am looking to see whether my officials can give more precise figures than I can. We cannot know the answer for sure. One reason why it is possible to have a clearer picture of the number of haemophiliacs who are affected is that they are in regular touch with haemophilia centres, so the data for them are better. It is harder to know how many other people have been affected. Clearly, if they have actively raised their case, or taken legal action, we would know. I find it difficult to give you a precise answer.
The parliamentary debate on 26 April resulted in acceptance of the Executive's amendment. The amended motion stated:
Those are the amounts that were awarded in the English High Court judgment, for a range of reasons.
Yes.
Mary Scanlon is right to say that the Executive amendment to which she referred asked Parliament to note both the report on "Hepatitis C and Heat Treatment of Blood Products for Haemophiliacs in the mid 1980s" and the English High Court judgment. We asked the Parliament to note the report because we thought that it was right and appropriate to note the fact that an investigation into this issue had been carried out and a report published. We asked the Parliament to note the English High Court judgment in recognition of the fact that it may have implications for cases here in Scotland. Ever since the English judgment was made, we have made clear that we will consider fully, carefully and constructively its implications for Scotland.
If the Executive does not provide compensation in line with the English judgment, can we not expect similar court judgments to be made in Scotland? Are you taking that into account? Are you prepared for it?
It is self evident that no judgment made by an English court is binding in Scotland. However, a judgment made in an English court can be referred to by a Scottish court. For that reason it is right and proper for ministers to consider closely the implications that the English court judgment may have for Scotland. We will continue to do that. I am not sure that I have anything to add on that point.
When will you conclude your consideration of the English judgment, which will clearly have an impact on Scotland? When can we expect a statement from you on that?
I repeat that we are actively considering this issue. We are taking advice from a range of sources and considering the various cases that are pending in Scotland, each of which is different. Today we have touched on some of the reasons for that; they are to do with cause and timing of infection. It is not always certain how a person was infected. It is important that we do not generalise in this area.
I agree with Nicola Sturgeon's point about moving away from negligence and towards no-fault compensation. You mentioned the fact that compensation is available through the Macfarlane Trust for those infected with HIV. I understand that a similar situation obtains with regard to CJD. If that is not the case, perhaps you could explain the situation. Given the fact that the judge in the English case ruled that liability is defect based and not fault based, would not offering compensation for non-negligent injury be more cost-effective than the sort of litigation that took place in England? Do you agree that, being less expensive, that would be less likely to lead to the defensive medicine that was mentioned in the debate in the Parliament?
I am not able to comment on the Welsh ruling on vibration white finger, but I wonder whether it involved compensation relating to NHS treatment rather than to people developing the condition for other reasons.
I mentioned it in the context of your comment about English rulings having no effect on what is decided in Scotland. Precedents are set elsewhere, particularly on health issues, that can have a bearing on the outcome of similar cases in Scots law.
Let me be clear about what I did and did not say. I did not use the phrase "no effect." What I said was that any decision taken in an English court—or any court outwith the Scottish legal system for that matter—is clearly not binding on a Scottish court. That is a statement of fact. I also said that it is open to a Scottish court to have regard to decisions made in courts elsewhere. Indeed, politicians can examine and consider judgments that have been made elsewhere to see what we consider the implications to be, either in policy terms or in strict legal terms. That is exactly what we are doing.
I hear what you say about the difference between the situation for hepatitis C and that for CJD particularly, but in the late '80s CJD was transmitted to patients who were treated with growth hormone derived from pituitary glands. That situation involved people contracting CJD through treatment in the health service rather than through other means. Compensation is being paid to patients who contracted diseases that might have arisen from treatment in the health service. Given that we have accepted that we should aim for some form of no-fault compensation, why do you say that the door cannot be opened to patients who contracted hepatitis C?
I stress that at no stage have I said that we should move towards a no-fault compensation arrangement; I have said that we must consider each case on its merits. Such a process might include the report, which I conducted, on an issue that involved fault, but it might also include cases that might be affected by the recent English judgment which, as Janis Hughes said, moved away from fault and on to the terrain of defect.
I take the minister back to the parliamentary debate on hepatitis C in April and the Executive amendment that asked the Parliament to note the Executive's report and the English judgment and called on the Executive
By "constructively" I would mean that we would conduct our examination in an open-minded way and that we would not prejudge our decision. Should we consider that the judgment has a bearing on action that we should take, we would be prepared to deal with that.
It strikes me that if the Executive amendment that day had simply called on the Executive to examine the implications of the English judgment, the Executive may have found it difficult to deliver the votes for that amendment, because members were looking for a positive response from the Executive to the English judgment. The word "constructively" allowed members to interpret the Executive amendment in that way. Do you believe that that was a factor?
I can answer only for what the Executive is doing in this area, which is what I have sought to do this morning. We all have an obligation to ensure that, in our political debates, we do not lose sight of the complex human, technical and legal issues that we are dealing with. We could never have done full justice to the issue in an hour-long debate in the chamber. I have given a commitment to take the time and effort to examine fully and constructively this complex issue. Mr Justice Burton's judgment goes to hundreds of pages, so it is right and proper that we examine it carefully and constructively. I cannot speculate on the interpretation that others might put on the commitments that we have made.
No, but on behalf of the Executive you are not ruling out a positive response to the petition to examine the case for compensation that we are considering, in light of the English judgment. That is not ruled out, and I take it that neither is it ruled in.
I hope that I have made clear this morning the many different issues and circumstances that arise and how different different cases are. Throughout, I have sought to make a constructive and I hope appropriate and proportionate response to each case on its merits as it has been brought to me. That is what I will continue to do.
The point that John McAllion raised is important. The Executive amendment was welcomed across the chamber, but it was welcomed because it raised an expectation that there may be movement in the Government's position. If that turns out not to be the case and those expectations are dashed, the minister should be aware that the matter will be returned to in Parliament. The issue will not go away.
I am disappointed that Nicola Sturgeon speaks in terms of concessions and raising expectations. I made the point firmly a moment ago that complex human, technical and legal issues are involved. It is important that we do not distort that with some of the more pejorative terminology that politicians are apt to use.
I assure the minister that it was not my intention to use pejorative language. I am sorry to labour the point, but we are now at the heart of the issue. The general principle is not in dispute. I support it. It exists for a good reason, but it has already been moved away from in the case of those who have contracted HIV. Having moved away from that principle in well-defined circumstances, we should debate whether the line is properly drawn. I do not think that it is. It cannot be defended. It would do a service to the debate if we discussed where the line should be drawn. I fear that the minister has an intransigent attitude today. I had hoped that we had moved beyond that in parliamentary debates.
The use of "intransigent" is pejorative. I stress that I have sought actively to take forward such issues and I give the committee a commitment that I shall continue to do so. I am pleased that Nicola Sturgeon endorsed the general principle of compensation not being offered in cases of non-negligent harm. People generally adhere to that view. That is important to note, because at the same time Nicola Sturgeon seemed to be asking me to move away from that general principle.
You have already moved away from it.
I repeat that I am pleased that Nicola Sturgeon agrees with the general principle. I agree with it. One case was considered by a Conservative Administration under specific circumstances in the 1980s, before most of us in the room were involved in politics or elected public office. I have sought to speculate about the basis on which such a decision was made. One case was an exception to the principle.
Will the minister concede that the line is perhaps not drawn at the right place at the moment?
I have made my position clear. Any further comments on my part will not add to the discussion.
It is up to the committee to make its position clear when the report is published.
The minister said that she is reluctant to comment on specific cases and that she does not want to prejudice the outcome of the inquiry into the English judgment. Although the judgment runs to many pages, we are all aware of the key quotations. For example, on page 4 of his judgment, Justice Burton said:
Will Shona Robison repeat her last question?
Do you accept in principle, from what Justice Burton said, that the English case seems to apply to both blood transfusion and blood product transfusion?
I am bound to say that it is not for me to interpret what one line in a long and complex judgment in an English court might mean for us here—that would be irresponsible of me.
With due respect, I am sure that in your discussions about the implications of that English judgment, that line will be at the front of your mind and the minds of your colleagues who are discussing the matter. It is a key line in the judgment—it is there in black and white and it refers clearly to blood products. All that I am asking of you is to say whether you agree that the statement refers clearly to blood-product transfusion rather than only to blood transfusion. How else could you interpret it?
I stress that it would be irresponsible of me to take one line from a court judgment and place an interpretation on it. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I have given in Parliament, to the committee and in response to John McAllion's question, which is that we are considering fully, carefully and constructively the implications of the full judgment. That is the right thing for us to do.
Will you confirm whether you have discussed that aspect of the judgment?
I repeat that we are considering the judgment and its full implications. We are doing so constructively and with an open mind.
You described the contacts that you have spoken to about the judgment. Who are those contacts?
On any matter of Executive policy, ministers will always seek advice from a range of sources. I speak in general terms, but that would typically include the minister's department and officials more widely throughout the Executive. A matter such as this also has legal and financial implications. As ministers, we will seek any advice that we consider necessary to enable us to take the right decision. That would be the case with any decision that ministers were faced with.
Your report said:
I hope that Margaret Jamieson will appreciate that I am being consistent with my previous responses when I say that it is not appropriate at this stage for me to comment on that judgment or its implications for Scotland. I make the general point that Margaret Jamieson is right to highlight that the core of that judgment and the debate that we are having is the question of how to deal with risk in the NHS, which is a huge and sensitive issue.
Will the minister advise us whether, and when, an appeal will be lodged by our colleagues down south?
The Department of Health has indicated that it is not appealing against the decision—it made an announcement to that effect.
We have discussed the restricted nature of the Executive inquiry and report. One aspect that has not so far been touched on is the fact that the inquiry was internal to the Executive and was not held in public. Given that the founding principles of the Parliament are openness, accessibility and accountability, will you comment on whether there is a case for a public inquiry? Given the earlier discussion, will you tell the committee whether the remit for such an inquiry should be broader, to include non-haemophiliacs and blood transfusions as well as blood-product transfusions?
Members will be aware that, since the Scottish Executive came into being, we have been asked to look back at a number of issues—historical incidents or practices that relate to a past period—especially in my area of responsibility. Often, I face calls for full public inquiries into those and other areas. In each case, I have to judge what I believe would be the appropriate level of examination and investigation. In this instance, I judged that it would be possible for us to conduct a thorough fact-finding exercise. John McAllion rightly looks to the Executive to achieve openness. I support openness and openness was achieved by publishing the facts fully as we found them and the evidence that had been gathered as part the inquiry.
Others would disagree with that, and would think that there is a need for a public inquiry. Indeed, I have given evidence to the committee in support of a public inquiry. We have been told that other countries—such as Canada and the Republic of Ireland—have carried out public inquiries and awarded compensation. Will you comment on that? If a debate is needed on where the line should be drawn on compensation—as compared to HIV cases, which we discussed earlier—could that be part of a public inquiry's remit? Should the problem be addressed in that way? Impressive as the Health and Community Care Committee is, it does not have the resources to carry out the kind of public inquiry that is required.
I reiterate that the basis upon which we have examined the issues thus far has been appropriate and proportionate. Of course I am aware that others have suggested that an alternative approach should be adopted in this area, as in other areas, but I remain unconvinced that a full public inquiry of the type that has been described would necessarily be the best and most appropriate way for us to move forward.
The narrow remit that was given to the Executive inquiry was shown by the fact that it specifically mentioned hepatitis C. Hepatitis C was known to exist for a long time before it was designated as hepatitis C, as was non-A, non-B hepatitis. Evidence was simply never considered by the Executive inquiry. The matter needs to be investigated; that is surely another argument for a public inquiry. The evidence surrounding non-A, non-B hepatitis was not part of the Executive report.
I disagree with the construction that John McAllion has placed on the report, but I want to stick to the issue of process. The report thoroughly considered a specific issue in a specific period. The findings were published in an open and accessible way. I am not aware that anyone challenged the substantive findings or the presented facts. That speaks for itself.
This morning's discussion has been interesting. I realise that the minister has had some difficulty holding the line on the fact that the HIV decision in the 1980s broke the principle of no-fault compensation for the health service. I do not want to pre-empt our report, but I believe that there is no negligence in respect of the heat treatment of blood and blood products, nor in respect of the alanine amino transferase testing for blood products, which is used in the production of factor VIII. However, there are questions to be asked about screening, which is why the decision was made in England and Wales about ALT screening of whole blood.
I certainly share the view that, in many respects, it is time to look to the future, rather than to the past. That is one of the reasons why I have never considered that it would be the best use of our time, energy and resources to spend more time inquiring into past events. Some of the bigger issues relate to future practice. How such a debate is conducted and when it should take place is not something that should be decided only by the Government. A debate on the management of risk, negligence and compensation in the health service has massive implications for patients, health professionals, and for the medical profession in particular.
On the group that has petitioned the Parliament, the specifics are quite clear about its members' suffering as far as their daily activities and their ability to live life fully are concerned. I hope that, even if the Executive does not make a judgment on some form of compensation, it will move swiftly to provide those patients with the sort of support that they need, both in terms of counselling and in relation to specific difficulties that they have with insurance, mortgages and other matters. Through no fault of their own, those people have suffered from an adverse event in their medical treatment.
We ought to strive to provide support and assistance to the large number of people who have been affected by hepatitis C in many different circumstances. The problem is now a modern epidemic of significant proportions, and the Executive has been active. For example, a Scottish needs assessment programme report on hepatitis C has been published, and work has been undertaken nationally and locally to improve what is being done on the problem. Furthermore, our HIV health promotion strategy, which was published last year, was backed by £7 million of additional investment to examine any other measures that might prevent the transmission of blood-borne infections in health care, and among drug users and other groups. I hope that such practical steps show that the Executive has remained active.
Will you answer Richard Simpson's specific point about some of the financial implications of the disease, which might affect the insurance industry, the mortgage industry and so on? Such issues might not be the easiest for you to deal with, because they relate to reserved matters. Let us put to one side the issue of financial compensation, and instead consider the financial implications for the people who must live with the disease. As minister, can you apply any pressure on the insurance and mortgage businesses to introduce an element of fairness in relation to the point that Richard Simpson raised?
You are right, convener, that as a minister in the devolved Scottish Executive, I have no powers to act in relation to regulation of the insurance industry or of the financial services sector, for example. It is worth noting—although it is always dangerous to speak for one's opposite number—that this is an area in which Alan Milburn has recently made a number of public statements, in particular on genetic testing, in which he made it clear that he and the UK Government want to examine the practices of the insurance industry. They want to do so to ensure that—again, it is dangerous for me to paraphrase the words of another minister—people get fair treatment from the insurance industry. They want to ensure that people are not prejudiced by the fact that they either have, or it has been predicted by genetic testing that they will develop, a particular condition that could adversely affect how they are treated in relation to financial matters.
I want to finish on a point of clarification about an issue that was raised by the Haemophilia Society. When you gave evidence to us on the issue at the tail end of last year, you said in relation to the Haemophilia Society:
If members look at the Official Report, they will see that what I in fact said when I appeared before the committee. I was asked:
Surely, minister, if you are constructively considering the English court judgment, the Haemophilia Society would be a relevant group for you to take evidence and advice from. Can you give an assurance that it will be listened to in the review?
The society has been listened to previously, I have met some of its members and I will continue to do so.
This is a new issue. The English court judgment brings a new angle to the situation. Can you give a commitment today that, should the Haemophilia Society wish to meet you, you will meet it specifically to discuss the implications of that judgment?
I think that I have answered that question. I have always said that, if there were new or outstanding issues to be addressed, which could usefully be addressed in that way, it would be done. I repeat that it does not always follow that a meeting with a minister is the best way of taking matters forward. In our on-going deliberations it might, for example, be considered appropriate for further written contributions to be taken from the society, or for officials to meet its members, instead of or in addition to a meeting. I rule out none of those options. Our track record to date shows that we are very happy to take views and submissions from the Haemophilia Society or from other groups or individuals—one of the important points that has been raised today is that other groups and individuals are affected.
We should wrap up this part of the meeting. We await with great interest the minister's constructive consideration of the English judgment, and I echo the points that were made by John McAllion, that this was exactly what the Parliament was looking for: a constructive, not intransigent, approach on the matter.
Meeting adjourned until 11:10 and continued in private until 11:50.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation