Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport
Shona Robison MSP
T: 0300 244 4000
E: xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxxx
Rt Hon David Lidington MP
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Minister for the Cabinet Office
The Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS
___
Your ref: CDL/1879
Our ref:
25th June 2018
Dear David
I am writing regarding the proposed Terms of Reference for the UK Infected Blood Inquiry
which you forwarded for consultation on 15 June. In broad terms I am content with the
proposed Terms of Reference as far as they relate to Scottish matters, although I would
reiterate that the Scottish Government believes the UK Inquiry should not duplicate the work
of the Penrose Inquiry in relation to what happened in Scotland. Both UK Ministers and the
Inquiry Chair have previously undertaken to avoid any unneccessary duplication where the
Penrose Inquiry has already considered a matter in depth that is wholly or primarily a
Scottish matter. As the Secretary of State for Health commented last year, the UK Inquiry
should complement rather than duplicate the Penrose Inquiry, supported by the extensive
investigations already carried out.
I note that the Terms of Reference are broader than those of the Penrose Inquiry, particularly
in relation to the consideration of financial support and the inclusion of vCJD and other risks
to the blood supply. The Penrose Inquiry focused on hepatitis C and HIV infections,
although some consideration was given to hepatitis B. I am sure that stakeholders in
Scotland and the UK will be pleased that these additional matters are being investigated.
The broad Terms of Reference give rise to the potential identification of activity that may be
assessed as potentially criminal. For example, it is proposed that the Inquiry examine
whether there have been any attempts to conceal what happened. In considering these
matters, the Inquiry will of course be aware that Scottish criminal law is distinct and separate
from other UK jurisdictions. The Inquiry must also recognise the constitutional position of the
Lord Advocate as independent public prosecutor in Scotland.
We supported the view from most stakeholders that the Inquiry should be led by a panel,
rather than a single chair, but I think the proposed use of expert groups to inform the Inquiry
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
www.gov.scot
is a good alternative. This should allow the Inquiry to conduct its work more quickly, drawing
on a range of expertise from across the UK. We would be happy to suggest appropriate
experts in Scotland who could participate in these groups, including those who previously
provided evidence to the Penrose Inquiry. I agree that core participants should be given the
opportunity to discuss how the proposed approach would work in practice.
As has been indicated by the Chair, I hope that appropriate consideration will continue to be
given to engagement with those affected across the UK as the Inquiry develops, with
hearings and evidence taking sessions accessible to everyone.
I would be grateful if we could continue to keep in close touch as the Inquiry develops so the
Scottish Government is kept up to date and can consider what further evidence, documents
or other information may need to be produced in due course.
SHONA ROBISON
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
www.gov.scot