Chamber and committees

I thank Paul Sweeney for that offer. As the committee knows, we will have a debate on the LCM on the bill this afternoon and it is my intention, after having listened to contributions, to write to the UK Government outlining what is said in the chamber. I see no reason why the committee’s views should not also be shared, whether separately by you or as part of my letter. It would probably be better if you did it separately. I have no concerns about that.

As I said in response to Ruth Maguire’s question, the important thing is that we think about those who were infected and have been affected, and that we put those people at the centre of our decision making. I am sure that you will do that.

Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence on the legislative consent memorandum, especially as you have, I know, had to arrange this meeting at short notice. I am afraid that that is because, as the convener pointed out, the United Kingdom Government was able to table its amendments on infected blood compensation only at a very late stage at Westminster.

What happened to infected blood victims was a terrible tragedy, and the Scottish Government has apologised. The Scottish Government confirmed in its closing submissions to the Infected Blood Inquiry that it recognises the strong case for provision of compensation to all those who were infected with hepatitis and/or HIV as a result of infected national health service blood or blood products, and to their bereaved relatives. Given that context, I am supportive of the policy intent.

The amendments are the first step towards implementation, in full or in part, of the inquiry’s recommendations, as set out in its “Second Interim Report”. The inquiry recommended that compensation should be provided by one UK-wide scheme in order to ensure consistency of approach, regardless of where in the UK an applicant lives or where they were infected. The UK Government amendments do so by setting up a new arm’s-length body to be called the infected blood compensation authority, which will deliver the infected blood compensation scheme.

The amendments will ensure that people in Scotland will have access to the scheme on the same basis as those elsewhere in the UK. Much of the detail, including eligibility and payment levels, will need to be set out in regulations. I know that that has caused some concern; however, John Glen MP, who is UK Minister for the Cabinet Office, wrote to me on the day on which the amendments were tabled and I have replied to stress that the details of the compensation scheme should be set out as quickly as possible.

The inquiry’s “Second Interim Report” also recommended that further interim compensation payments of £100,000 should be made to certain relatives of infected people, following the £100,000 interim payments that were made to infected people or their bereaved partners in October 2022. In response, the amendments also provide for payments to the estates of infected people who have sadly died. That is being done as a pragmatic method of ensuring that family members of the deceased get some compensation reasonably quickly. In my letter to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, I stressed that those payments should be made as quickly as possible.

The UK Government’s last-minute tabling of amendments has left us in a difficult position, with practically no opportunity to negotiate changes. However, given that the amendments represent a concrete step towards both providing compensation to the victims of that terrible tragedy and ensuring that relatives, who have received nothing or very little so far, receive interim compensation, I recommend that the Scottish Parliament consents.

Through continued engagement with the UK Government, I will seek to ensure that the needs of the victims are put first and that the scheme works for all those victims in Scotland.???

I agree. Some of the stories that I have also heard are harrowing; they are not the kind of stories that we want to hear about Scotland. In his evidence, Nicky Coia reflected on one story from a nurse in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde area. It is important that we ensure that everybody who works in health and social care gets the right support to understand how things have changed in the way in which HIV is treated. It is fair to say that there is a lack of up-to-date knowledge; the committee heard evidence to support that.

That is why the work of Dr Daniela Brawley and NHS Grampian on e-learning is so important. If it is successful, I hope that it will be rolled out in the same way as other education that is provided on the Turas learning system. In his evidence, Nicky Coia talked clearly about what Glasgow had done 10 years ago and recognised that there might be a need to build on that.

Education is one of the important aspects of our plan. It is especially important to remember that stigma is a dreadful thing. I attended a round-table meeting hosted by Paul O’Kane—it was one of the first that I attended in my role—because it was important for me to hear from people who are living with HIV about the impact that it has on their lives. It is about those awareness campaigns, and about how we, as elected members of the Parliament, can support that awareness.

I pay tribute to the Terence Higgins Trust for the fantastic collaborative work that it did to produce the campaign advert video that was shared on media from October last year. We are currently analysing that campaign to get its outcomes. It is really important to raise awareness and try to reduce stigma.

I pass that on to Rebekah Carton.

We will get the information from that work when we evaluate the outcomes of those opt-out pilots.

I whole-heartedly endorse what Maggie Chapman said about television, film and adverts. When I think about where my knowledge came from, it was from the films “Philadelphia” and “Dallas Buyers Club”. You spoke about dramas, and “EastEnders” had that kind of storyline. That is important. In the online age, short pieces can also be helpful, which is why the Terrence Higgins Trust film really cut through. It was short and hard hitting, but the message was absolutely clear. As I said earlier, we are doing some work to gather information on that to see how it has worked, and we will keep that in mind if we have further plans for whatever awareness raising that we feel needs to be done.

As I said earlier, I represent one of Scotland’s rural constituencies. I have had conversations that are similar to some of the evidence that you heard.

I always think that there is an interesting balance to take in rural communities. Because of the stigma, some people are happier travelling to a larger population centre for their treatment. We have to bear that in mind when we are looking at the situation.

In the committee’s previous evidence session, Dr Howe gave strong anecdotal evidence about how she operates and how things operate in Highland. It is important to recognise that, alongside the delivery plan, we have done some work to look at rural inequalities and how we can ensure that the service that people in those areas get is the same as we would expect in the larger centres and is person centred. I think that that work will be published later this week.

The committee also heard from Professor Estcourt about the amazing work that is being doing with regard to ePrEP. Again, that could work well to support people in rural communities.

Have I covered everything, Rebekah Carton?

I appreciate that we published the plan just this morning. If the committee has any further questions about it and wants to write to us, we would be very happy to have a dialogue in that way.

On resources, we have set aside £1.7 million for the whole HIV plan within this element of Government. The committee heard very clear evidence that resources are tight for this. I am reflecting on that. That is why it is so important that we get the spending on this right. There will be more information coming out on how we decide to spend the money, but we appreciate that we have a tight budget.

I put on record the amazing collaboration that happens among the third sector, academics, health boards and the Government. That came across really strongly in your two evidence sessions in the previous meeting. I like to say that they are our critical friends, and I think that we work very well together. I really appreciate their hard work. They know their community so well. Dr Clutterbuck reflected on that in his evidence.

We must remember that the pilots are happening in busy A and E departments. We do not want to introduce, for long periods of time, additional stresses in areas that are already very stressed. We felt that we could get the answers from the time periods that we set.

It is important that we recognise that pilots are also happening in England. The data that comes out of those, as well as the data that comes out of Scotland, will be considered so that we can see the bigger picture.

That is one of the things that we are looking at. If I am correct—Rebekah Carton will correct me if I am wrong—currently, clinics have to prescribe PrEP. We are taking forward work on how we can widen the prescribing of PrEP so that GPs can do it. We are doing scoping work in NHS Grampian with GPs to find out how open they are to doing that and how we can make it work in the best way possible for them and for the people who will be prescribed PrEP.