Penrose inquiry smacks of a whitewash

Health secretary Nicola Sturgeon’s statement on the cost so far of the Penrose Inquiry (your report, 9 May) raises several questions. While one cannot forecast the outcome of Lord Penrose’s report, many of us who were infected with or affected by Hepatitis C as the result of NHS treatment are not optimistic.

The statement poses several questions that need to be addressed.

Why was the inquiry funded by the NHS budget? Why were most people who were affected and wished to give oral evidence refused by Lord Penrose?

About 160 people provided written statements, and 80 of them wished to be core participants. Lord Penrose only agreed to 15 being core participants, and at the end of the hearings had only allowed six core participants to give oral evidence. Why?

Given the government’s statement that 67 people gave oral evidence, what happen to the views of those infected?

For more than 20 years I and several others (some who have since died or are seriously ill) have campaigned for an inquiry.

We welcomed the SNP government’s announcement in July 2007 to set up a judicial inquiry.

It would be an understatement to say that we are disappointed by Lord Penrose’s approach to this tragedy, which Lord Robert Winston described “as the worst tragedy in the history of the NHS”.

The setting up of the inquiry gave hope that finally the impact of Hepatitis C due to infected blood has had on individuals and their families would be heard and lessons learnt. But the denial to hear the voices of those infected gives the impression of a whitewash.

The statement about the cost of the inquiry should not be used as an excuse for not getting to the truth.

There seem to be no difficulties regarding the costs of the Leveson Inquiry about the media scandal.

So why are there such cutting concerns about an inquiry into the deaths of so many patients treated by the NHS in Scotland? Christine Grahame and Jackson Carlaw may be correct that there should be a better way of getting to the truth, but if the judiciary, which should be independent, fails to seek the truth due to being restricted to cost, what alternative exists? Perhaps the government does not want the truth to be known.

Philip Dolan MBE

Scottish Infected Blood Forum

Camphill Avenue

Glasgow