Hepatitis C
At our meeting on 18 April, the committee agreed to call for a full public, judicial inquiry into the treatment of people who were infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment, with a particular focus on the efficacy of the look-back exercise. The committee was particularly concerned about the comprehensiveness of the exercise to trace those who might have become infected and whether further action might be necessary to trace all those who might have been infected.
A response from the Minister for Health and Community Care has been received and is with the papers that were sent out to members. I draw to members' attention the minister's concluding paragraph, in which he states:
"I do not believe a public inquiry would either uncover any new evidence or information that is relevant to the causes of the infection of NHS patients through blood or blood products, or lead to significant lessons for the future. It would be a diversion of effort from delivering and improving health services today. I cannot see that there is any possible justification for the efforts and costs that would be involved, or that this would bring any benefit to the patients involved."
The committee has also received a response to the minister's letter from the Scottish Haemophilia Forum, which also forms part of the committee's papers, and a further letter from the forum that was received only yesterday—I believe it has been circulated to members—requesting that the committee continue to support the call for an independent inquiry.
I invite members to consider the ministerial response and the correspondence in our hands from the Scottish Haemophilia Forum.
Whatever people think about whether there should be an independent inquiry, the minister has made it clear in his letter that he will not have a public inquiry. The last sentence of his letter states:
"On the basis of this position I would ask the Committee to reconsider the decision regarding the call for a public enquiry."
I do not think that the committee is in a position to reconsider its decision. We have taken evidence from a number of organisations over many months and the situation has been going on for years. We came to a conclusion based on the evidence; it was not based on nothing or on a whim. I do not think that the committee is in a position to reconsider its decision. If we were going to reconsider it we would have to go back and start taking evidence again.
The minister has made his decision and I do not think that he will change it, but I do not think that the committee can now revisit all the evidence and reconsider its decision. It is a little bit insulting of the minister to ask the committee to reconsider the decision, because it gives the impression that it was taken lightly, but it was not. I did not support the call for a public inquiry, but committee members made a considered, informed decision to ask for a public inquiry and we should not go back and reconsider it again.
I accept what Kate Maclean is saying. This committee and the Health and Community Care Committee in the previous session of Parliament—the convener of that committee, Margaret Smith, is here today—stated that if new evidence was brought forward it should be considered. I accept the minister's response that in his opinion there is no new evidence. Therefore, I do not think that we should push the matter any further.
That is a slightly different issue from the one that Kate Maclean talked about.
I agree with Kate Maclean. It is unwise for a minister to write to a committee to ask it to reverse a decision. Apart from anything else, it sets a bad precedent. The minister's request is not particularly helpful.
There is a lot in the letter that I think is challengeable. My suggestion is that we note the letter, but ask for a written response from those who raised the issue in the first place. It is right and proper that they at least get a chance to respond to the letter.
I draw committee members' attention to the last paragraph of the letter dated 24 June received from the Scottish Haemophilia Forum. The letter indicates that the forum is seeking a meeting with the minister and that it has received correspondence suggesting that such a meeting may be arranged within the next few weeks. To be honest, I am uncomfortable about our doing anything prior to that meeting. We should continue to have a watching brief, because if discussions are on-going the issue remains live and we should acknowledge that that is the case. We can ask for a more detailed response to the minister's letter, but my guess is that in any case it would not come until representatives of the forum have met the minister.
I am pleased that you made those comments, convener. There comes a stage when we must examine our role as a committee. We are not a campaigning organisation for the Scottish Haemophilia Forum. We are not an adjunct to it or part of it. We examine the evidence.
A lesson for the committee—and all committees, notwithstanding Kate Maclean's comment that the decision was made after a great amount of evidence was taken—is that committees are more effective at holding the Executive to account when they make unanimous decisions with cross-party consensus. Unfortunately, that was not the case on this issue.
Margaret Smith is here today and we are tempting her into saying something. We should acknowledge that the Health and Community Care Committee did a great job for the hepatitis C victims. It set a pace not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom. None of that is recognised. The situation will not just go away. Pandering to populism by saying that we should get another letter and another letter from the forum and thereby keeping the issue on the agenda is cruel in the extreme. It is not fair on the people that we are representing and it is not fair on the committee. We must give time to many other issues. Over the past two sessions, our health committees have not given this much time to any other matter. Given the challenges that we face in the health service, we need to look to ourselves.
I point out that it is the minister who has invited us to reopen the issue.
We have made our decision.
That is it—the decision is on the table and it would not be appropriate for the Health Committee to start revisiting the matter. Indeed, it would not be appropriate for any committee to revisit a decision that has only just been made, because the process would never end.
I agree absolutely with Duncan McNeil. As far as I am concerned, the committee made a decision and the minister has said that he does not want to go down that route. I see no point in asking for letters from any organisation. The ball is firmly in the minister's court. He has made a decision and he can meet people and get further responses from anyone he likes.
It is not that I have no sympathy for the hep C sufferers who we have dealt with over the years, but we need to draw a line under the matter and not ask for more letters or submissions. We need to be honest about the fact that the committee has made a decision. We did our best and now we should move on and leave the ball very firmly in the minister's court.
It is difficult to know where to start and end.
Briefly, is the answer.
The Health and Community Care Committee gave a great deal of time to the matter in the first session, with some success. Those of us who served on that committee were left thinking that we would have liked to do more, but the people who are left suffering feel that much more acutely.
I am a substitute on the current Health Committee so I will not make a definitive judgment on what the committee should do about a decision that you took following evidence taking. However, the committee has made its decision and it is not for the minister to tell the committee to change it.
The Scottish Haemophilia Forum hopes to have another meeting with the minister. The minister has sent quite a detailed response to the committee. Given that no real work will be done over the summer recess anyway, it would be reasonable to ask the Scottish Haemophilia Forum to respond if there are what it considers to be any factual inaccuracies in the minister's response. However, we should not reopen the matter simply to continue the debate.
It would be good to return from the recess to a final response from the forum and an update on what happened during the meeting with the minister. The committee cannot be expected to revisit a decision that was based on evidence that it took.
I agree with practically everything that has been said. I read the detailed letter from the minister and it did not change my mind. I was stunned by the last sentence—if the minister did not want there to be an inquiry, what did he expect us to do? He did not like our decision so are we expected to change it? We could not change that decision other than by taking much more in-depth evidence, which would almost be like another inquiry. I do not see how we could do that. I feel sorry for those haemophiliacs, but we have decided that that is the end of the matter.
I propose that I write to the minister to thank him for the detailed response to our report that he gave in his letter and to say that we do not consider it appropriate to reverse the committee's decision. Further, I will say that we understand that he is in discussions with the Scottish Haemophilia Forum about a possible meeting and that we are interested in the outcome of that discussion. We should also write in similar terms to the forum. At this stage, I see no reason for the matter to be put on a future agenda unless something changes considerably. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That ends our business. I wish members happy holidays. Our next meeting is on 5 September, when we will consider our approach to the Health Board Elections (Scotland) Bill and begin taking evidence on the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill.
I advise members that the care inquiry debate will take place on the afternoon of 20 September. I also point out that I have lodged a health question, on transport to and from hospitals, which I will ask in the chamber tomorrow.
Meeting closed at 12:15.