Hepatitis C
Members have in front of them a letter from me, as convener, to the minister and the minister's response. I would like the views of the committee on where we go from here. Possible options are to write to the minister seeking details of the meetings that have been held and the arrangements for future meetings, or to ask the minister to give evidence to the committee after the recess.
As members who have been on the committee for some time know, the matter has been the subject of a long and protracted discussion. We have been seeking answers from the minister for some time now. The two options before us today are not mutually exclusive. Given that this is our last meeting before the parliamentary recess, we are restricted in what we do in the short term. I suggest that we do both: we write again to the minister seeking details of the meetings that have been held and the arrangements for future meetings, and we ask the minister to attend the first committee meeting after the recess, or if not the first meeting, an early meeting.
I agree with Janis Hughes. It is important that we do both those things. However, we must try to pin the minister down about whether progress is likely to be made. I was disheartened by his response—little or no progress seems to have been made. By the time we return after the recess, people will have been waiting ever since the announcement was made, which is a period of about nine months. Expectations will have been raised about financial assistance. The situation is ridiculous. I am sure that many members have constituents asking them what is happening and when can they expect to hear something. That is difficult.
The committee should find out what the process is vis-à-vis the Privy Council. The minister referred to that in his letter. He says that he would rather that the issue be resolved by negotiation. I think that we would all agree with that because we want an outcome for the people concerned. However, we also need to furnish ourselves with the facts about how that process would work and how long it would take, so that we will have the information when we come back after the recess. We could perhaps ask the minister some questions about that if we were well briefed on it in advance.
It would be handy if the clerks provided a note on the procedures for that.
We need to respond to the minister. I have outstanding a long letter that I sent to him about the problem. Although the letter has been acknowledged, I have not had a reply, and I would like to know what the minister has to say when he replies. We need to take evidence from the Ross committee. It is the recommendations of that committee that the minister was minded to do something about. I am not sure whether there have been any changes to what has gone on behind the scenes over the nine-month period. Is there any new evidence?
The blood production people and others are willing to come to the Parliament to address the problems. We need to have a good briefing, and I am happy that the clerks can do that. We need to have the minister back, but we need to discuss matters in a briefing before he comes back, and not on the same day. We could perhaps have a briefing for one of the meetings, and the minister could attend the following meeting, so that we are up to speed. If we are writing to the minister, we could give him notice that we will require him to come on a particular date and that he should bring the latest information from whoever he has had to deal with in Westminster. The minister also has the evidence from Ireland. I found the way in which the Irish decided on claims interesting. Perhaps the briefing note could outline whether there are lessons to be learnt from that.
I think that, this morning, we have learnt a lesson about how speedily legislation from Brussels can be introduced. However, now that we have our own devolved Parliament, legislative goings-on between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament are very sluggish.
I am only a new member, so please correct me if my understanding is wrong, but I am embarrassed and saddened by the fact that, although people who have hepatitis C know that the minister is willing to pay out and, although there has already been a decision about people in England who were given bad blood, we cannot make things happen in Scotland. Devolution is no good if it does not do our people any good. After all, those people do not deserve their illness; most of them happened to get it through treatment. It is not their fault, and they should not be penalised. I agree with all the comments that have been made. I do not know enough about the ways and means of getting the speediest resolution to the problem, but it is urgent that we do so, given that the minister essentially agrees that the pay-outs should be made.
It is clear to me that the previous Health and Community Care Committee decided that that should happen in 2001, and the decision was endorsed by the expert group that the minister set up. According to our briefing note, the minister indicated that the Executive was minded to provide the money for those who are seriously ill. As a result, the decision has already been made.
It strikes me that the issue is a simple one of competence. Protocols already exist between the Scottish Executive and UK Government ministers by which competence issues can be resolved by both sides deciding to reach agreement without referring the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for adjudication. Thankfully, we have not had to use that neutral body. I think that the minister intends to ensure that the UK Government and the Scottish Executive reach such an agreement.
However, now that five or six months have gone by, I feel that we have waited long enough. There is no need to take any further evidence, because the issue is closed as far as we are concerned. We know the right thing to do. Therefore, I ask that the committee responds to the minister directly, at this meeting, to urge him to reach the necessary agreement speedily. I hope that the committee will back my suggestion that, if the UK Government and the Scottish Executive have not reached agreement when we come back in September, we urge that the matter be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Nine months should be quite sufficient to reach an agreement.
I think that we are going to wind up with a consensus on this matter, which would be a nice way to end the meeting.
It was a difficult time when all the hard work was done and the previous Health and Community Care Committee should be congratulated on the work that it did for hepatitis C victims. It was a massive breakthrough. After all, we are talking about a no-fault compensation scheme.
Anyone who has been involved with asbestos victims—as I have—knows that those people die waiting. They wait for nine or 10 years for compensation and go through an adversarial process that kills their spirit. I do not want to let the fact that a great job has been done for hep C victims go unsaid. We are bumping into issues such as the benefits system and clawback which impact on all other victims of perceived negligence or of circumstances such as hep C infection. We are dealing with a pretty big matter, so we should not be blasé about it.
The achievements so far have been great, but there are serious implications for the health service, GPs and clinicians. We must avoid an American-style system in which people consult their insurance agents before receiving treatment. Although I support the comments that we should put maximum pressure on the minister to respond to us as early as possible, I feel that the committee needs to examine various other issues that arise from the decision that we have taken.
In that case, are members content for the clerks to draw up a briefing note that details the procedures that might be available to us if there is no consensus—such as referring the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—and what has happened with hepatitis C elsewhere in the UK, in Ireland and perhaps in Europe? Are members also content that we circulate for approval a draft letter to the minister, asking him about the number of meetings that have been held and informing him that we seek to call him to the second meeting of the committee after the recess?
Finally, are we content to call the minister to that committee meeting? That will keep some pressure on him.
Members indicated agreement.
I am pleased that we have ended up happy at the end of the meeting. You are a robust team.
Meeting closed at 12:05.