Hansard

We have moved a long way since homosexual relations between men over 21 and in private ceased to be illegal in 1967. We would think that, by now, being gay should not be an issue. Like gender inequality, the notion of homophobia ought to have fallen out of use by now. I do not know why we find ourselves exposed to discrimination of any kind wherever it is directed, but I recognise that it is still with us, as we discussed only a few weeks ago in a debate on hate crime.

When discrimination is built into the official system, we need to be very wary. Not long ago, as Rona Mackay said, gay couples could not apply to adopt children. Thankfully, we have changed that. The public good must always be linked to the human rights of any individual.

There are solid clinical reasons why certain groups of people cannot give blood, although they could well become recipients of someone else’s donation. Those with type 1 diabetes, which is controlled by insulin, cannot donate. That is not because there is anything wrong with their blood, but because the blood donation service deems the risk too high for the potential donor. There are some medications that preclude someone from giving blood, and the same restriction applies to people with certain blood conditions or a history of specific diseases that could potentially be passed on to a recipient.

Those criteria are clear and widely accepted. We would be in a dangerous situation if clinical filtering mechanisms did not exist and life events such as birth and major road traffic accidents, and all the diseases that we can now control and manage, would become far greater threats. That aside, the critical point is that those criteria involve decisions that are made on scientific grounds, not as a result of some sort of irrational discrimination. They are, as it were, the outcomes of positive or rational discrimination.

We all know that blood donations must be safe. Anyone can acquire a blood-borne virus or a sexually transmitted disease, but some people have an increased risk of exposure and so might not be able to give blood or will be excluded for a certain period of time; we heard about that in Rona Mackay’s speech.

In June this year, it was revealed that UK blood is safer since the lifetime ban on gay men donating blood was changed in 2011. The Department of Health in England said:

“Surveillance data derived from the tests carried out on every blood donation in England, Scotland and Wales since the policy change show that fewer infections are being detected in donated blood”.

Major HIV charities, including the Terrence Higgins Trust, supported the change from a total ban on MSM giving blood to a 12-month exclusion period. However, we are now hearing calls for that exclusion to be revisited and, in April, SaBTO set up a working group to review the current donor acceptance criteria and consider any available new evidence. I support those calls.

Stonewall has described the move as

“a step in the right direction”

and highlighted the fact that a high-risk heterosexual would be less controlled than a low-risk gay man who was in a monogamous relationship.

I hope that all organisations with an interest in ending this discrimination will work with SaBTO to ensure that the policy and procedures maintain safety for everyone who uses transfusion and blood services, irrespective of sexual orientation.

HIV Scotland tells us in its briefing that

“every blood donation in Scotland is screened and the tests for HIV are now highly accurate”.

It also says that men who have had sex with one man in the past 12 months are likely to be of lower risk than many of those who are allowed to donate blood, including men and women who have unprotected sex with different partners.

It is time that we moved to non-discriminatory risk assessments to end this inequality. I support the motion in my friend Rona Mackay’s name and congratulate her on bringing the issue to the chamber.