Hansard

I, too, congratulate Rona Mackay on securing the debate.

It is pretty obvious to anyone that the primary objective of the blood transfusion service should be to maximise the safety of the supply of blood that is needed in critical services. However, there is a good argument that the current irrational criteria that are being applied do not maximise safety or supply. Additionally, there is an argument that applies to every aspect of our public services, which is that any element of discrimination or prejudice that is built into the way in which they work either strengthens or fails to challenge discrimination and prejudice in wider society, which means that there is a principled reason why every aspect of our public services must avoid discrimination.

In addition, on a third level, there is a case for saying that the discrimination itself undermines that first objective of maximising safety and supply. There will be many people who might well be willing and able safely to donate blood that is needed in Scotland but who choose not to, because of the way that they feel they might be judged or spoken to, or because they feel that they might be asked inappropriate questions.

That does not apply just to gay or bisexual men, or to men who have sex with men. Underlying some of the criteria that are being applied—in my view, they are quite irrational—we must also consider, for example, trans or non-binary people, who, if they are asked to explain whether they have had same-sex relationships in the past 12 months, may feel unable to give a straightforward answer that is both honest to themselves and gives the person asking for it the information that is being sought. They may simply feel unwilling to be categorised in a binary sense by being asked to give that information in the first place.

The most important thing that we have to do to ensure safety of the blood supply is testing, which is now being done to a far higher standard than it was in the past—certainly to a far higher standard than was possible when the original criteria were set down. We also have to ensure that people feel that giving blood is something that is valued. If some people are simply being told that their blood is not valued, or indeed if they have to tell lies in order to supply safe blood—which they know is safe—we are undermining that second goal of increasing the supply of blood that is needed.

I want to say something about another aspect of the criteria that we are not talking about. If a woman is asked whether she has had sex with a man who has ever had sex with a man, or if anyone is asked whether they have had sex with someone who has ever had sex for money, how many of them could give a 100 per cent guarantee that they know the correct answer? Again, we are asking for information that people may not be able to give with 100 per cent certainty and which is not in fact needed to ensure 100 per cent certainty of the safety of blood that is being donated.

I thank—I am sure that we all do—all those many people who donate blood and the people who deliver the service in communities up and down the country. It is a vital service, which genuinely save lives. We should value everyone who chooses to donate blood and everyone who works to ensure that the supply of that blood is available and is safe where it is needed. We should change the irrational rules that undermine both those objectives.