Official Report 241KB pdf
We have a number of petitions this morning. The first is from Mr Bill Welsh regarding measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. Committee members have received a detailed submission from Mr Welsh on behalf of a number of organisations, which raises several questions. This is an area of great sensitivity. We must discuss this case and decide on a course of action. The options are: to simply note the petition; to appoint a reporter to investigate and report back to the committee, and possibly do further work at that point; or to hold a full inquiry and take evidence, which would have to be done at a later date, given our work schedule.
We are grateful to Mr Welsh for the detail in his petition and for his subsequent letters to us. The issue is causing concern, and I feel that it is worthy of an inquiry, but I am well aware of the time limitations that are on us; we could not undertake an inquiry until at least after the recess. However, my recommendation is to have a full inquiry and take evidence from all concerned parties.
A number of issues are involved. There are concerns about the MMR vaccine, although the evidence is anecdotal, and there is almost certainly a rise in the number of individuals suffering from a disorder within the autistic spectrum, but whether those two are linked is not clear. Establishing a causal link between two rising trends is extremely difficult on occasions. However, there has been sufficient concern about vaccines and vaccination over a sufficient number of years that this is not a petition that we should simply note.
Following on from that, convener, the letter from Bill Welsh to the clerk says:
Given the massive agenda that we have, I would be concerned about our getting into this kind of area. The Health Technology Board for Scotland is the body that should be looking into this. The board prides itself on the fact that, unlike its counterpart in England, it will not be told by the minister what it should examine; that may or may not be a good thing. When there is an issue of major public concern, is there some way in which the Health Technology Board can be encouraged to take it up? There is one medical expert on the committee, but it does not seem to me to be appropriate for a body such as this to deal with a subject about which there is conflicting scientific evidence. When we receive petitions, can we at least flag up to the Health Technology Board for Scotland that there are issues that it might want to consider?
I agree. Given the committee's work load, to launch into a specific scientific investigation would be counter-productive. I want to pick up on Mary Scanlon's point about what the Deputy Minister for Community Care said he would be willing to do. Perhaps we can write to him to request that he expand on his commitment and provide us with a concrete plan or timetable for research. Once he has responded, we can move forward from there. It is not for this committee to carry out a scientific investigation into this issue.
I agree with what Ben Wallace has said. A distinction needs to be drawn between the sort of inquiry that Richard Simpson carried out, which was about consultation and local accountability—an area in which the committee has, if not expertise, at least a strong interest—and a scientific investigation. Frankly, the committee is not qualified to make a judgment on the issues at stake here. That is not to say that it would be a bad thing to take a morning's evidence on the matter. That would flag it up and provide a time frame for the Executive to come back with a briefing document setting out its conclusions, which the committee could test. I am perfectly comfortable with that. However, it is not for the committee to provide the sole momentum on this issue.
I agree with Ben Wallace. We should inform the minister that we have received this petition and that research into this subject should be commissioned. However, to return to what Malcolm Chisholm was saying, we should test the Health Technology Board and ask whether it would look into this issue on our behalf. Clearly, it is a matter of concern. There is a trend in the number of children being presented for inoculation and it is decreasing; that is worrying. We are coming at it from two or three different angles. Given the work load, it would be better for us to have the research conducted first. As Duncan Hamilton pointed out, that would give us an informed basis for a decision.
We said that we would write to the minister on the issue. If we write to him, we could ask for his initial comments on the petition. We could also ask what research the Executive is undertaking or plans to undertake and request a commitment on the time scale. At the same time, we could write to the newly formed Health Technology Board to ask whether this is an issue that it is planning to consider and whether it is something that would fall within its remit, if we recommended that it consider the matter. We could come back to the issue, having ascertained the answers to those questions.
We need the information, but let us not close the door.
Not at all. We could follow that up.
I was interested in Richard Simpson's suggestion that somebody should try to prepare a preliminary report. If that report found out even what we do not know, it would be useful. There are so many things that we do not know, particularly in relation to autism. We do not even know the prevalence of the condition in the British Isles. A preliminary investigation would be valuable. Over the last 20 years as a journalist, I have held the view that we must consider anything that the Department of Health has told us with scepticism. The department has been found out on many issues. We must have an independent mind in Scotland.
Let us not prejudge anything. There are some general concerns about the issue and we have had anecdotal evidence from parents who are concerned. It is part of the committee's job to allay any fears that we can. However, we must take on board the fact that we are not medical experts and therefore perhaps not the best people to do all the work on our own, although we may have a part to play.
It is important that we do not try to reinvent the wheel. I recall from some of the information presented in the petition that there is a congressional hearing on the matter. It would be useful to draw together some of the conclusions reached in that and to consider what the US Food and Drug Administration is going to do, rather than to conduct the whole hearing again in this committee. I am very conscious of what Malcolm Chisholm said about the committee's work load, but I also agree with Kay Ullrich's point, which is that we should not close the door entirely.
As well as writing to the minister and the Health Technology Board for Scotland, we will give members access to the congressional hearings information and evidence. We will also ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to provide a background note. That would not be closing the door on the issue.
Without wanting to add to your personal work load, convener, perhaps you could take that matter forward. You might raise the issues that you have outlined with the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which approves vaccines in the UK. We should be asking that committee for its view. At this point, it is important that the committee does not send out the message that it is an unsafe vaccine—it is a vaccine that saves lives. It is fundamental that we do not get into the sort of nonsense that we had over the triple vaccine 20 years ago, which resulted in substantial worsening of health, with people getting whooping cough and children dying because the wrong messages were coming out of committees.
We all agree whole-heartedly with that, Richard.
I had a phone call last week from somebody who is so concerned about what is being said about the triple vaccines that they want to find out in which country they can buy the single vaccines across the counter and administer them themselves. Obviously, I counselled strongly against doing that, but I am concerned by the messages that are being put out. Until we have the evidence and facts, people will, naturally, be very concerned, as this concerns their babies and children. I cannot stress enough the need for us and the media not to whip up a frenzy about this, because, like the person who phoned me, people will look for a do-it-yourself solution. That would be child abuse, as I informed them.
You are absolutely right. We must handle this issue with great sensitivity. Even Mr Welsh's submission says that, over the past 20 years, there have been all sorts of other insults, as he calls them, to the human body, such as pollution and additives to what we eat. As Richard Simpson says, it is difficult to establish a causal link between one impact and another. There could be other reasons, but there is definitely concern among parents of children who have autism. As Kay Ullrich has said, there is also concern among parents who are coming to the point at which their children must be vaccinated. We should treat this matter with sensitivity, but find a sensible way to answer some of those questions.
Apart from sensitivity, there is also urgency about this issue. In four health board areas in Scotland, take-up of the MMR vaccine is now well below the 90 per cent required to avoid an epidemic. I stress that this matter is urgent. We must get a clear message out to parents; we cannot leave this on the back burner.
I shall recap on some of the points that have arisen from our discussion. We shall write to the minister on the issues that we discussed and to the Health Technology Board. We shall ask SPICe to write a research note and we shall get copies of the evidence given to the congressional hearings in the United States last month. We shall also pick up on Richard Simpson's point about the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. At a later date, we shall discuss the issue again when we have all the information to hand and decide what is the best course of action.
We should also write to the various societies concerned with autism.
We are trying to find out about medical research; we must have that information before we can do anything else.
The autism organisations might have a view on the subject.
They may have a view, but it will not be based on medical research.
The main point is that when we return to this matter with all the information that we have garnered, we must decide whether to instigate a full inquiry or whether to appoint a reporter. If we decide to go down either of those two routes, we will obviously have to take evidence. At the moment, we are not closing the door on this matter. We will get further information and make use of it to decide what is the best and most constructive way forward. At the end of the day, the answers may come from an inquiry by this committee. However, putting a little bit of pressure elsewhere may get a better result, because others will have more expertise than committee members have as lay people, however excellent you all are.
We have before us four petitions that relate to Greater Glasgow Health Board's plans for health services in Glasgow. Three petitions are from Mr Frank Harvey and one is from Mr J McNeil.
These petitions should be noted. Greater Glasgow Health Board's consultation has just been extended. Following the committee's inquiry into Stobhill hospital, the health board embarked on a meaningful, frank and open consultation process. It would be inappropriate for the committee to intervene at this stage.
I agree that it is important that we do not influence that unduly, but there is a great deal of concern about Greater Glasgow Health Board's plans—I have had letters from members of the public and professionals that demonstrate that. The committee should keep an eye on the situation.
I agree. The consultation period has only recently been extended to September after considerable pushing from Unison and Glasgow MSPs. That is a brief consultation period in which to deal with almost all of Glasgow's major hospitals. A primary concern of mine is the siting of a large number of facilities at the Southern general hospital without the ambulance service being consulted. That issue is serious with regard to the Clyde tunnel, football matches on that side of the city and the two children's hospitals. We should consider at least one of Mr Harvey's petitions.
The people in Argyllshire, Lanarkshire, Argyll and Clyde, the Forth valley and Edinburgh use the tertiary services that are available in Glasgow. This is not just a Glasgow issue. There will be full and frank consultation with all the health boards in Scotland. We need to ensure that we are examining health care provision, not dilapidated buildings.
We were justifiably critical of Greater Glasgow Health Board's approach to Stobhill. We have to be mature about the situation and assume that it has learned from that experience. We should allow the health board to go through the consultation process, on which Richard Simpson worked so hard. We should not pre-empt that. Like other members, people have contacted me with regard to the health board, but I think that it would be inappropriate for us to jump the gun on the issue. After September, if we feel that the provision is not adequate, we can return to the issue.
I agree. We do not want to pre-empt the process.
I share the view of many members of the committee. An on-going consultation process is under way. I welcome the fact that the period has been extended after requests from MSPs and the general public. The committee has a good record of taking a strategic view of issues such as this. If we pre-empted the consultation process, we would send completely the wrong message to health boards. Also, we would be inundated with requests from members of the public wanting us to examine other issues while reviews and so on are in progress.
Let us be careful about this: are we noting, or are we rejecting? If we note a petition, we give it credence. We should have a wee think about that.
People have to be able to petition Parliament on any topic they want. On the other hand, when they try to use Parliament and its committees to circumvent the procedures for consultation that are in place, that is an abuse of the system. I have raised the point before that noting a petition should be a neutral course of action. We should at least add that, although we note the petitions, we do not accept that we should consider them further because that would circumvent the normal procedures.
I would do nothing to stop petitions. This Parliament was founded on a petition—the one to the Pope from the supporters of King Robert the Bruce called the Declaration of Arbroath. Mr Harvey is becoming a bit of a national treasure. However, appealing for at least the noting of the petitions, I would like to point out that two particular hospitals in Glasgow have national facilities—the sick kids hospital and the Queen Mother's hospital, which includes the national cardiac unit.
What about the Southern general?
I think that we should note that we will take no action on the petitions because there is an on-going consultation. I agree with Richard Simpson. It would be incompetent for us, when a decision-making process has not been undertaken by Greater Glasgow Health Board, to put forward opinions.
I would like to make a procedural point in relation to the Public Petitions Committee. Some of the requests in the petitions in front of us are not within our power or the Parliament's power. I would therefore ask that the Public Petitions Committee reject such petitions and not pass them on to us. We are not in a position to order a public inquiry into the Greater Glasgow Health Board, even if we wanted to. We are not in a position to reject the Greater Glasgow Health Board's proposals—we do not have that competence. The petitions should not be in front of us.
That point is well made. The Public Petitions Committee is looking at the way in which it functions and the range of its remit. People write to the Public Petitions Committee on absolutely everything—from the state of the pavements in a particular road, to the siting of telecommunications masts, to health board issues.
The final petition—agenda item 5—is from Thomas McKissock, on hepatitis C. We have previously discussed a petition on haemophilia, hepatitis C and the impact on blood transfusions. Members will remember that the minister was undertaking an internal review, and we agreed that we would await the report that would be given to us for comment, at which point we would decide whether to take any further action on the petition.
Thank you. I appreciate being given the opportunity to make representations on behalf of my constituent, who is not well enough to do so.
I would support that action.
So would I. This is an exceptionally serious issue. I suggest that we take three courses of action. First, we should ask the Executive to widen its inquiry to take on the points that Cathy Jamieson has just made. Secondly, we should try to push the Executive to an early resolution on the matter. It was referred to us on 14 December. A long period has passed, and we need to reach some sort of conclusion. Thirdly, we should invite the minister to the committee, at least for a brief discussion on the matter. We should receive all the information well in advance of that meeting, so that we can quiz the minister on the issues.
Let me provide more information on the status of our initial request to the minister. We made that request in December. A letter of reminder was sent to the minister's office on 16 May and we have spoken to the health and community care department. The latest estimate for the publication of the report that is to be passed to the committee and to be sent out for consultation is late June. We should therefore receive it soon.
It is useful to have that information. However, if the Executive's report is approaching its conclusion, that presents the committee with a problem. How will the issue be included if the report is almost concluded?
The Executive might not be able to include it because of the timetable, but it might be able to address it in a different way. The request will be made that it either include it in the report or address it differently. I anticipate that the committee will be able to extend its questioning when the minister attends, as it is within our remit to ask questions beyond those concerning the report. At the moment, we should keep the petition until we receive a response from the health and community care department on whether it can expand its report or provide information on the issue. When we have received all that information, we can decide what we should do.
I support Cathy Jamieson's point about widening the inquiry, which would be eminently sensible. The letter to the committee from the health and community care department, dated 21 March, states that it
Haemophilia is incidental to this. I suspect that the inquiry will focus on the acquisition of hepatitis C through blood transfusion products, and I imagine that the report will include the sort of case that has been presented today.
The only problem is that, if we need to extend the report or examine aspects that have not been covered by the report, a July date would probably be too soon. If those matters are already in the report, no issue would arise.
It is interesting to contrast the time that we are given to deal with the entire budget with the time that the Executive has for a report.
I wish to make one simple point. The information outlining the current inquiry, which has also gone to the petitioner, refers consistently to haemophilia and contaminated blood products. Richard Simpson is correct that, in a sense, that is not the issue. The wider issue is about blood products. Unfortunately, the information that has been sent out appears to give the message to my constituent and others in the same situation that their cases are not being taken into account. At the very least, I ask the committee to write to the Executive to make that point.
I remind members that it was decided at our previous meeting that we would not meet at the beginning of July, so that members could carry out community care visits. We decided that a small team of committee members would deal with statutory instruments, which have to be dealt with. If you want us to write to the minister and to meet in July, we will be going against our previous decision.
It is important to advise the Executive in advance that we want the answer to this matter included in the inquiry. If we do not do that, there is a danger that the minister or the officials will rightly say that it is outwith the remit of the inquiry but that it is perhaps something for a future investigation.
We should write to the Executive this week, drawing its attention to the fact that it is now several months after the time by which we were told that we would have a report. We should say that we are keen for the matter to be brought to a conclusion, but that we ask the Executive to extend the report to take on board the comments on contracting hepatitis C in ways other than those involving haemophiliacs and so on. We should ask the Executive to give us an answer within a week, so that we have on our agenda next week its response on the timetable for the report, on whether the report as it is constituted covers all those matters, and on how long it will be before we can receive an answer if it has to extend the report. We can make a final decision about the petition after we have received that information. Is that acceptable?
Meeting closed at 12:34.
Previous
Community Care