Meeting of the Parliament 30 April 2024
My committee’s scrutiny of the LCM has been curtailed due to the bill being amended to include provisions affecting devolved matters only at report stage in the House of Lords. The committee sought evidence on the amendments from stakeholders, who raised a number of serious concerns that some of the changes deviate from the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report.
In particular, the submission from Haemophilia Scotland raised concerns that the previous requirement for the infected blood compensation authority, or IBCA, to be chaired by a judge of the High Court or the Court of Session had been removed. In addition, it was concerned that appeal hearings would no longer have the option to be conducted in person and would be before the IBCA rather than an independent appeal body, and that the amendments also appear to remove access to independent legal representation and support during an appeal. Haemophilia Scotland expressed further concern that no provision had been made for the representation of members of the community on the IBCA.
Respondents to the committee’s call for evidence further argued that the IBCA should be accountable to Parliament and not to a minister or department. They suggested that there should be
“a clear, tight, and agreed timetable to get to the point of operational delivery of the scheme.”
On that basis, they were concerned that the amendments remove a three-month timescale from the bill.
Respondents highlight a lack of detail relating to compensation payments, specifically with regard to the circumstances in which payments would be held in trust and the possibility of repayments. They argued that the chair should be responsible for all governance, management, structural and operational matters and for organisational development, and that the existing support scheme in Scotland—the Scottish infected blood support scheme, or SIBSS—should be kept separate from the compensation scheme and guaranteed for life.
Respondents make the case that support payments and compensation payments should be, in their words, “segregated legislatively” and that hepatitis B victims should be included in the interim compensation arrangements. Finally, respondents have suggested that those who are infected and affected by contaminated blood should be involved in the establishment of the IBCA and should have input and a power of veto in relation to key appointments.
Despite those concerns, Haemophilia Scotland noted that it was nonetheless supportive of the amendments because of a
“need to get this legislation into place so that swifter progress can be made to establish a compensation scheme for infected and affected individuals.”
Meanwhile, the Scottish Infected Blood Forum said that we need a
“balance between getting legislation into place so that swifter progress can be made to establish a compensation scheme for infected and affected individuals, and moving ‘at pace’ and then getting it wrong with little possibility of retrospective changes being enacted once views and actions have been solidified.”
The SIBF concludes:
“We finally urge the Health Committee to look at all the specific issues and inclusions outlined above to aid the Scottish Parliament in passing the Legislative Consent Motion (LCM) for the relevant sections of the V&P Bill while opposing those which are not in the best interests of Scottish citizens or devolution.”
The committee concluded its scrutiny by recommending that the Parliament agree to the legislative consent motion. However, we also intend to write to the UK Government to further highlight stakeholder concerns.
16:40