Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Official Report 596KB pdf

---

Victims and Prisoners Bill

The second item on our agenda is an evidence session on a legislative consent memorandum for the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I welcome to the committee the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto. Her supporting officials are Sam Baker and James How from the Scottish Government’s public health capabilities division and Marie Penman, from the Scottish Government’s legal directorate.

A purpose of the Victims and Prisoners Bill is to require the Secretary of State to establish a body to administer a compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal within three months of passing the bill. Due to time constraints in the passage of the bill at Westminster and the subsequent lodging of the LCM at a late stage, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is also considering the LCM at its meeting today, so it will not be possible to include its conclusions in our consideration.

I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.

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.???

Thank you, minister. I move to questions.

Good morning, minister. Everyone, I think, will want to get this legislation in place as swiftly as possible and establish the compensation scheme.

Although Haemophilia Scotland supports the LCM, in its submission to the committee it talks about

“serious concerns over some ... proposed changes which deviate from ... recommendations set out”

in the

“Compensation Framework Study and ... Second Interim Report.”

Will you talk to the Scottish Government’s thinking on those deviations?

Thank you for your question. I agree with your opening sentiments that it is important that we ensure that people who have been infected and affected are supported as soon as possible.

I share some of the concerns of Haemophilia Scotland and of the Scottish Infected Blood Forum. The amendments that we are discussing come from the UK Government so, sadly, I cannot explain their detail. We have worked as closely as we can with the UK Government and we have had a number of four-nations meetings to discuss the concerns of each of the nations. Despite the concerns that some organisations have raised, not everything will be on the face of the bill. A lot of the work will be done through regulations, on which I see myself and my officials working closely with the UK Government to represent the views of stakeholders and the thoughts of the Scottish Government.

That is helpful.

I declare an interest as a practising NHS doctor.

Thank you for your statement, minister. Do you know the number of people who are affected in Scotland?

Through the Scottish infected blood support scheme, we have made payments of £100,000 since October 2022. My understanding is that there are 22—

No; that is the figure for the estates.

We know that there are 22 estates. Sam, do you know the exact numbers?

We do not know exactly how many people are infected or affected. The SIBSS has about 580 members at the moment, but others will be affected. People who, sadly, have died might have relatives who will wish to claim from the compensation scheme or claim the interim compensation. We do not know exactly how many of those there are. We are working with the UK Government and the lawyers who hold the old files from the previous support schemes to establish how many there might be, but until people come forward and apply, exactly how many of them there are is not known. Does that help?

Is the compensation being paid by the Scottish Government or the UK Government?

The interim recommendations involved a UK-wide compensation scheme, which would be administered by the UK Government. Payments for that element would therefore come from the UK Government.

Minister, you will be aware that stakeholders have concerns about the appointment of Sir Jonathan Montgomery and about the lack of transparency on the expert group’s membership which, I believe, has not been published or publicised. I am keen to hear the Scottish Government’s view on the anonymity of the group’s membership.

I understand stakeholders concerns about that. I do not know the make-up of the external expert group, either. In one of the four-nations meetings, I asked for consideration to be given to having at least one Scottish member of the group. I do not know whether that has happened. I have some sympathy with the anonymity of the group being maintained. However, John Glen, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, is coming to Scotland next week and will meet the stakeholders. I hope that that will give them an opportunity to discuss the issue with him.

Given your correspondence and contact with the UK Government regarding group members’ anonymity and the inclusion of a Scottish representative, what is the Scottish Government’s plan, going forward?

I am pleased that over the past year we have had—I think—four intergovernmental meetings on the matter. In addition, in the past few months, my officials have been meeting weekly, and sometimes twice weekly. We have a number of avenues through which to raise any points that we wish to raise with the UK Government. I also intend to join the stakeholders in meeting Mr Glen next week.

Good morning, minister. You said that you have a number of avenues. How will the Scottish Government work with the UK Government on the matter?

It is really important that we set up the right processes. In the meetings that I have had with the stakeholders in the past year, I have been very clear that we will represent their views, and I have done that in person, in Teams meetings and in letters, as have my colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland. As I laid out in my response to the convener, my officials are meeting officials from the UK Government’s Cabinet Office and the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that all four nations are represented.

Thank you for your statement, minister.

Do you consider that parliamentary correspondence with the UK Government might be helpful? I know that the House of Lords is sitting today to consider amendments to the bill and that further amendments might be tabled. If this committee were to express a view, would that be helpful in supporting the stakeholders who have expressed concerns, notwithstanding their overall support for moving forward with the bill? Would it be helpful if we gave voice to any issues, particularly on a judge-led approach?

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.

As members have no further questions, I thank the minister and her officials for their attendance. I suspend the meeting briefly to allow a change of witnesses.

09:43 Meeting suspended.  

09:46 On resuming—