New Petitions

Good afternoon. Thanks very much for inviting me to come here today. I apologise for the absence of Angela Paton, who was to have accompanied me today. Due to ill health, she could not come.Each day, 1,000 blood donations are needed in Scotland to maintain the blood stocks that are required to keep Scotland going and to meet our health needs with regard to blood. Dr Moira Carter of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has said that there are not enough donors to meet Scottish health care needs at the moment. Supplies are dangerously low, as committee members will be aware from the multitude of adverts by the blood transfusion service."Have a heart", "Give blood", "Save a life" and "Give the gift of life" are all slogans of the National Blood Service in the United Kingdom, which are designed to capture the attention and sympathy of people in the UK in order to convince them to give blood. I ask the committee to consider the position that I was in, when I was 19 years old, as I queued up to give blood. I was full of excitement and wanted to make a difference—to give the gift of life. However, I was told that, unfortunately, I could not give blood due to my lifestyle choices.Giving blood in the UK is not met with a payment, unlike the situation in other countries. Money does not change hands—unless tea and biscuits are legal tender in Scotland. It is a selfless act, and it is one of the only things left in the world that is done for the good of mankind. The NHS blood transfusion service says that the issue is specific behaviours that put people at risk and that it is not about being gay or bisexual. The blood transfusion service says that there is no exclusion of gay men who have never had sex with another man.The blood transfusion service refers to being gay as a lifestyle choice that puts people at risk. I would say that being gay is no more a lifestyle choice than being born with brown eyes or a German accent. Our society—and particularly the Parliament, and Scotland as a whole—is one that celebrates diversity and equality. Being gay is recognised as a fundamental part of the human condition. The petition is not about a blood amnesty, and it is not demanding that the doors should be opened tomorrow to everyone who wants to give blood. There are certain people who should not give blood due to their individual behaviour, such as participating in unprotected sex. It is not about pushing a statute to introduce the right for everyone to give blood. The only person who has a right is the person who receives the blood, who has a right to safe blood. We are asking for a commonsense approach on the part of the blood transfusion service. Specific behaviour, such as having unprotected sex, would exclude someone from giving blood. That should be the case for gay and heterosexual males who present themselves at the transfusion service. Australia, Spain, South Africa, Russia, Italy and Thailand allow men who identify themselves as being gay or bisexual to give blood. In Australia and South Africa, donors are asked whether they have had sexual contact with another male in the past 12 months. If the answer is no, they can give blood. The UK blood transfusion service imports blood products from Australia, where gay and bisexual men can give blood. I would ask the committee to consider urging the Scottish Government to change its stance and to adopt a more flexible approach, in which we hold people capable of judging their own risk and each person has their individual behaviours assessed. A blanket ban is not the answer. I would love to be able to give blood—I would do it today if I could.

There is a simple question to ask donors to assess whether they present a risk, which is whether they have participated in unprotected sex. If the answer is yes, they should not be allowed to give blood, but if it is no, and someone has safe sex—it does not matter whether it is with men or women—they should be allowed to give blood. Introducing that question could make blood donation much safer. When Italy introduced that question in 2001 and removed the blanket ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood, there was a drop of two thirds in the number of people who contracted HIV from blood donations. Spain introduced a similar policy and the number of people contracting HIV from blood is now a sixth of what it was before the ban was lifted. Introducing a simple question that asks about unprotected sex will make all blood safer.

Thank you for asking. The blood transfusion service feels that introducing that question may put people off giving blood in the first instance. The current questioning goes into great detail—it asks people whether they have had sexual contact with someone who has been in an excluded country, whether they have had a tattoo and whether they have used drugs intravenously, and it asks men whether they have had protected or unprotected sex with another male. An element of honesty is required to answer those questions. The blood transfusion service asks potential male donors whether they have had sex with another male, but if someone answers that they have not, they could give blood—no polygraph test is run to determine whether that is the case. The system already involves an element of trust.It is a question of moving forward and recognising that there is a significant shortage in the availability of blood. There are no definitive figures on how many gay, lesbian and bisexual people there are in the UK, so we could not say that there would be a 10 per cent increase in the number of people who donate blood. However, in other countries the lifting of the ban has had a positive impact on the safety of blood tissue and organs—there have been fewer cases of infection from donated blood because donors have been asked about particular risks. Gay donors have not simply been told that they have made a lifestyle choice.

In Scotland, the testing mechanism that is used to detect HIV is called nucleic acid testing. In general, there is a window period of three months, within which the antibodies cannot be fully detected. Nucleic acid testing cuts down the window period to about 16 days. I am not a doctor, but I have read about different testing mechanisms that are used in different countries. All blood is screened. The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service is of the opinion that cutting out people who are seen to have been at high risk will minimise exposure to HIV/AIDS and other infections. That is a preventive measure that relies on trust.At the moment, there is a campaign in England to enable gay people who are willing to give blood to go to a centre, for example, to be tested for HIV/AIDS. They could be given a certificate to indicate that everything is okay, which they could present when giving blood. That would remove the element of the system that relies on trust. Many people would not be prepared to take such a test, as they would regard it as another hurdle, but I would, as I want to give blood. I would be prepared to be tested and to say that I have not had unprotected sex with anyone, that I have not placed myself at high risk and that I have a certificate that indicates that I have no infections of any description. The campaign in England is suggesting that approach as the way forward.Nick Henderson has information on the testing that is available in different countries.

Nanette Milne made the point that the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service believes that gay men are at higher risk of HIV infection. Department of Health figures show that, in the past year, 2,732 heterosexual people and 2,145 gay people were infected with HIV. Straight people are now more at risk than gay people of contracting HIV, partly because the safe sex message is really getting through to gay and bisexual people. Very few gay and bisexual people would even consider having unprotected sex. That view is much less prevalent among straight people—I do not know how well the safe sex message is getting through to them. I do not think that gay and bisexual men are at any more risk than others of contracting HIV.The nucleic acid testing window period is the same—16 days—for straight people and gay people. The chance that infection will not be detected is the same for a straight person who has HIV and has not been asked whether they have had unprotected sex as it is for a gay person who has HIV. There is no justification for a blanket ban on gay people giving blood.

I accept the point that you make. I have been told that if someone goes to their general practitioner to be tested for HIV/AIDS, they are demonstrating that they have behaved in a way that has put them at risk.There are different screening centres, including confidential screening centres that are aimed at the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and which try to offer more discreet testing. Instead of having to ask their GP for a test a person can go to the screening centre for a general MOT. Various providers offer such a service and, as I understand it, they do not go back to the GP and say, "We tested this person for X, Y and Z."

Nick Henderson and I have spoken to various organisations throughout the campaign. The Terrence Higgins Trust has said that currently it is satisfied with the epidemiological data and that it is happy with where we are. Every service provider has its own agenda and aims and objectives, and all seek to promote holistic health among gay and lesbian communities, but the THT focuses on education and awareness. I have considered the information and asked questions and, in all honesty, I am not sure how the THT, which represents a large number of people in the gay and lesbian community, reached its conclusion. Its policy document seems to have been produced in response to a request from the blood transfusion service for a position statement. The THT has said, "This is where we stand."Many of my friends in the gay and lesbian community and many other people to whom we have spoken throughout the campaign fail to understand why the THT has come to its conclusion and why there appears to be no uniform approach. It has been suggested that people could get personal health certificates, which would show that they are not at risk, or that people who have abstained from sexual contact for 12 months could give blood, as happens in Australia. Many suggestions are flying around.For me, the issue is individual behaviour. Someone who has multiple sexual partners or unprotected sex puts themselves at high risk. The risk should be measured, as opposed to refusing someone because they belong to the LGBT community. Of course, the blood transfusion service says that the issue is not the person's being gay but their lifestyle choices. As I said, being gay is not a lifestyle choice. It is certainly not a lifestyle choice for me or for many members of the gay community; it is about who we are.

I agree completely with what you have said and Nanette Milne made a really good point. The issue is a talking point. No matter who someone is in this world, everything is about safety, and not just because people might make a legal claim against the blood transfusion service. The demand for blood is significant. I accept that gay people and others might put themselves at high risk through individual behaviour. When we started the petition, I saw the position as discriminatory and almost homophobic, but I have now reached the view that the point about safety is strong. No one around this table is homophobic—the issue is not as clear cut as that.Many questions need to be answered. When I lodged the petition, I wanted first and foremost to raise members' awareness of the issue and to get it out there for people to consider. There are always differences of opinion among doctors. I am not a GP or a doctor, so I cannot say specifically what we could do.

The question was asked how we sell the proposal to encourage people to agree with it. Thailand has set an example. In that country, 30 per cent of gay and bisexual men are HIV positive, but it has instituted a policy of asking all donors whether they have had unprotected sex and has lifted the blanket ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood. I return to Rhoda Grant's point that people who have been tested for HIV must pay a higher insurance premium, which shows the fear about the issue. In addition to the gay blood campaign, much more must be done to tackle HIV.Thailand has managed to institute the policy that I described, as have other countries such as Russia, South Africa, Spain and Italy, as we have said. Asking the simple questions of all donors and allowing other people to give blood improve health, blood stocks and the safety of blood stocks.

It has not been as nerve-wracking as I was expecting it to be. I was expecting a "Dragons' Den" type of experience.