Health and Community Care Committee, 12 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 12, 2000

Official Report 234KB pdf

---

Petitions

Agenda item 8 is petitions. As I said earlier, this forms a significant part of the work load of the committee. We are always seen as a good target for petitions. As members know, we circulate petitions as they arrive and committee members can comment on them if they wish to take any further action.

The first petition is from the Epilepsy Association of Scotland. The only comments that have been received are from Richard Simpson, who proposed that we await the outcome of the acute services review but ask SPICe to gather information and review this matter in the future.

Are there any other comments?

I agree. Especially as that review moves into its implementation stages, we need to monitor how epilepsy will be catered for.

So will we maintain a holding position on the issue for the time being, on the basis of what Richard Simpson has suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE223, is from Mr and Mrs McQuire and calls for the Scottish Parliament to ensure that multiple sclerosis sufferers in Lothian are not denied the opportunity to be prescribed beta interferon. We covered the issue of multiple sclerosis earlier and are awaiting reports on the matter. We have asked our researchers to do some background work for us. We can return to the issue in due course.

Both the Health Technology Board for Scotland and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence are producing reports. The NICE report has been set back. It was to have come out on 3 December, but it has been postponed. Clearly, the HTBS is in communication with NICE to ensure that they do not duplicate work. A subgroup of the HTBS is examining the area and the Multiple Sclerosis Society in Scotland is represented on that working party. A comprehensive set of arrangements is in place and it would be inappropriate for us to get involved until the groups have reported.

We might want to comment on the issue on the back of those reports. I suggest that we adopt a holding position in relation to this petition as well. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

On the petition about rapeseed crushing, the committee has no comment to make other than to suggest that no action be taken. Is that agreed?

The issue affects a number of people, but I do not know how the Health and Community Care Committee can deal with it. Perhaps the Transport and the Environment Committee—

As you will see from your note, Dorothy-Grace, the Transport and the Environment Committee is leading on the matter. I suggest that this committee should say that we do not want to take any further action. The lead committee referred the petition to us for comment. If we say that we will take no action, it is up to that committee to decide what it wants to do. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE148, is from William Brian Anderson on behalf of the Organophosphate Information Network and calls for the Scottish Parliament to investigate various issues relating to specialist referral and diagnosis of exposure to organophosphates.

I believe that this matter is being considered by a Westminster committee. Duplicating that work would not be the best use of our time. It might be better to wait for that report to come out to see whether it has any implications for Scotland.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE192, is from Alex Doherty and calls for the Scottish Parliament to order the Mental Welfare Commission to regard all of its records as health records and to comply with access requirements.

The response from the commission says that, since Mr Doherty's brother committed suicide, the Mental Welfare Commission has changed its approach. However, it will not make the records available to Mr Doherty as some have a degree of confidentiality attached to them.

Shall we simply note the response from the Mental Welfare Commission and forward it to Mr Doherty?

It may be that, under the functions of the Mental Welfare Commission, the item should be reviewed. I suggest referring the correspondence to the Millan commission.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE214, calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the current recruitment crisis in the cardiac transplant unit at Glasgow royal infirmary. We have a response from the Executive. Some of the information in it is heartening, as it shows that there have been developments since we received that petition.

I think that we should keep a watching brief on the matter. Perhaps in February, we should ask the Executive for a progress report, as there are a number of concerns about progress towards the reopening of the unit. I have doubts about whether it will reopen on schedule. We should reassure the petitioner that we are keeping abreast of the matter and reassure ourselves that progress is being made.

Our interest is in the unit as a national service. If the intention is that it should reopen in the spring of 2001, it would seem reasonable for us to reconsider the matter. February would seem to be a reasonable time to do that. Are we agreed?

Has the standard that a patient who is waiting for a heart transplant can expect of transplant services declined as a result of the suspension of the unit?

It is impossible to say. The number of transplants has declined, but it is impossible to say categorically that that is because the unit has closed; it may be due to a lack of donors.

At the moment, the Executive's response is that a certain amount of people's pre-and post-operative treatment and care can be taken care of in Glasgow, but the operation itself involves patients going to Newcastle. The level of service is therefore not the same as it was, but it is impossible to say exactly what changes have taken place—the need to travel to Newcastle is one obvious change for Scottish patients.

We should reconsider the matter in due course.

The anxiety being felt by some patients and their families is focused not only on when the unit will reopen, but on check-up operations at Glasgow royal infirmary. The concern since the unit closed is that patients have claimed that operations are being cancelled at the last minute. One person claimed that he had turned up from Wick to be told that he could not be seen until the next day.

It might be helpful if the convener could write to the trust at Glasgow royal to inquire officially into the delays. We do not want people who have had their operations and who are still being checked at Glasgow royal to undergo extra stress due to cancellations. The concern is not just recruitment for the future, but the current situation in the limbo period before the unit officially reopens.

There is no limbo period for pre- and post-operative care. The situation is as it was before. Only the operations have been transferred. Post-operative care is still available to all patients at the GRI.

That is the point. The situation may have improved in the past month or two, but the patients group claims that over the months too many post-operative appointments have been cancelled. Could the convener write a letter to check up on that?

We are beginning to stray from the matter before us. We are being asked to do something specific. That is now turning into a trawl of every complaint and concern that exists about the wider issue. If we did that with every petition, we would never finish—we would be administrative postbags.

I feel uneasy about the fact that we are going more into the day-to-day operation of the service than into the question raised in the petition. It would be reasonable for us between now and February to ask whether the current service is being run effectively, but we can deal with that through the Executive. We will also ask the Executive further questions raised by its response, which was quite good, about the on-going running of pre- and post-operative services. We will return to the reopening of the unit in February.

I understand from the Sunday papers that interviews were held yesterday for a new consultant and that two of the existing consultants are being trained at the Freeman hospital. When you ask the minister for an update, convener, will you also ask for an update on lung transplants at the unit, which she also promised to consider?

That is a fair point. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We have received a number of petitions on car parking charges. Clarification on the matter was sought from the Executive, which has responded by saying that it is unaware of any breach of policy. Although car parking charges should not be introduced to subsidise health care provision, they have been introduced for several other reasons, such as the better organisation of car parking. Do members have any further comments on the issue?

I understand that the health board in that area is reviewing car parking charges in light of the Executive's clarification. I think that we should simply note that situation.

We should note both that and the committee's support of the Executive's position that there should be no cross-subsidy of health services.

The next two petitions under consideration are PE45 from the West of Scotland Haemophilia Society and PE185 from Thomas McKissock. We have also been contacted by the Haemophilia Society, which feels that the Government's response to a haemophilia inquiry was lacking. The society wishes to give a presentation on the matter to the committee. The report was published by the Executive on 22 October and considered by the committee on 25 October, when we questioned the Minister for Health and Community Care on the matter. The question for the committee is how we progress the issue.

Members will be aware of recent press reports about the screening of blood donations prior to transfusion. Although that is a slightly different matter, I was certainly concerned by a report in The Scotsman. The minister told us that it was impossible to check whether hepatitis C—non-A, non-B hepatitis, as it used to be known—had been heat-treated out of a blood donation, because the disease had not been classified with that name. The article in The Scotsman—backed up by extracts from minutes that were provided by regional managers of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service—claimed that during the 1980s, the service had a series of discussions about the presence of a non-A, non-B hepatitis, which was having an impact on people and was being screened for in other countries. At that time, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service wrote a letter to The Lancet on the issue.

At the tail end of last week, I asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to provide a research note on the matter, which members should have. Researchers have had a chance to review the documents that were supplied to The Scotsman, and I hope that members will find the briefing note useful when the committee comes to make a decision about petitions PE45 and PE185. Although the note refers to an earlier stage in the process from that which the committee discussed, it raises serious questions about whether it is a justifiable defence to claim that hepatitis C could not be screened out of donations because it was not called hepatitis C at the time. If it was known that a disease called non-A, non-B hepatitis was having a serious impact, surely the name of the disease is irrelevant; the point is that that impact existed.

I would like guidance from committee members on whether we wish to hear from the Haemophilia Society, which has asked to come and give evidence on the matter. We have taken oral evidence from the minister—if we ask the Haemophilia Society, we may consider asking the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service and others, so that we can finalise our response to the petitions.

A few unanswered questions surround the matter. Since the meeting at which we discussed hepatitis C with the minister, substantial new evidence has been produced. It is incumbent on the committee to deal with that. The first step should be to take evidence from the Haemophilia Society. We can decide what to do next after we have asked the society questions on its evidence. We should talk to the blood transfusion service, and perhaps take evidence again from the minister.

In light of the evidence that is in the public domain, it is totally unsatisfactory that the matter should rest on an internal report—a report by the Executive on an Executive agency. While questions remain on that, it is incumbent on the committee to try to get some answers.

It is not for the committee to tell the Minister for Health and Community Care who she should see, but I would like this point to be noted. At the meeting that she attended, she said in answer to a question from an MSP that she would be happy to meet the Haemophilia Society again to discuss continuing concerns and new evidence. The society has since received a letter from her, in response to a request for a meeting, which said that she would not meet the society. That is unsatisfactory, and the committee should take note of that.

That is a serious issue. As Nicola Sturgeon said, the minister told us that she would be willing to meet the Haemophilia Society again. As convener of this committee, I feel that that would be a reasonable thing for the minister to do in the circumstances. Committee members may have opinions on that—especially when we consider that the minister raised the point in evidence to us. What she said was welcomed by committee members.

To follow on from what Nicola Sturgeon said, I agree that we should take evidence from the Haemophilia Society. We should hear from the blood transfusion service too. To hear from one but not the other would serve no purpose.

Cathy Jamieson represented Mr McKissock, who was unable to attend to discuss his petition. His situation was different and has not been considered in the inquiry by the Scottish Executive. If I recollect correctly, Mr McKissock contracted hepatitis C through routine surgery. Cases such as his have been excluded from the inquiry. We should look into that, because a great number of individuals find themselves with hepatitis C through no fault of their own. Some have contracted it during the course of emergency treatment, not through the normal course of their treatment, which is the way that haemophiliacs have contracted it. We must consider sufferers of hepatitis C who are not haemophiliacs.

Initially, we asked the Executive to include such people. The Executive ruled that out, but members seem to be suggesting that we should continue on that tack and ask the researchers to give us information on the acquisition of hepatitis C by non-haemophiliacs, so that we can get an idea of the extent of the problem and how it comes about. That might lead us on to consider the screening of blood products and other questions of hygiene.

It is crucial that we take evidence. This issue has been with us for more than a decade and is not going to go away. We must listen to all the available evidence. I support asking the Haemophilia Society and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service to give evidence.

Can I be clear that we are confining our evidence taking to the question of screening? I assume that we are not going to go back over the old ground about heat treatments and so on. That has been covered adequately in the report. In relation to the new evidence about whether the blood should have been screened, we must decide whether the information was available and whether the screening test was appropriate and focused—in other words, that it did not produce too many false positives and false negatives. I would not support the committee broadening the inquiry to consider heat treatment.

The Executive report examined heat treatment. If we have witnesses from the Haemophilia Society who do not believe that that report is adequate, I do not know how we can get the information from them without going back to the Executive's response on heat treatment.

Having said that, I believe that the Haemophilia Society will make some points to us about why it does not believe that that report is adequate and why it questions the reports findings. If the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service is coming to give evidence, it would not be reasonable for members to feel that they were unable to ask questions about heat treatment, which is central to the Executive's report. We got at least one of the petitions because of that report.

Nicola Sturgeon and I have made the point that new evidence has come to us on screening. We will consider that issue afresh because it is a new development. How could we conduct an oral investigation effectively without asking questions about the main point of the Executive's report?

We will find that a deal more evidence is produced.

It is surprising that the letter from The Lancet has not come to our attention earlier. The files of The Scotsman and other newspapers will produce information from the early 1980s. We have been told that hepatitis C was not identified until the early 1990s. That is the terminology that was used. However, we know now that it was called non-A, non-B hepatitis. I refer to comments that I made in the Health and Community Care Committee from October onwards. I remember clearly that in the early 1980s haematologists and the blood transfusion service were pleading for a few hundred thousand pounds to set up a heat treatment unit in Scotland. We must look back and examine the issue as rigorously as possible. We should call in the authors of the letter in The Lancet and haematologists who were serving at the time.

I do not want to keep on interjecting on every comment made by committee members, but I think that the point that was raised earlier—that when we have heard evidence from the Haemophilia Society and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, we must decide whether we believe that the report published by the Executive is adequate—covers all the issues. The question for the committee is how we proceed if we feel that it is not an adequate response. That leads us into whether the matter requires further work by the committee, the Executive or somebody else.

At this stage, it is not for the committee to redo all the work that has been done. Members are well aware of committees' limitations. It might be that other people are better placed to get answers. When we have heard evidence from the Haemophilia Society and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, we will be better placed to judge whether the Executive's report is the final work that needs to be done to investigate the history of the matter.

I agree that it would be impractical and unfair to constrain the discussion, so I support the convener's view that the discussion about the issues and the evidence should be wide ranging.

I think that everybody supports the principle that there should be further investigation of the broad issues. However, we are struggling to agree on, or even to understand, the terms of reference. I think that we should agree that the matter will return to our agenda and that there will be an inquiry. We can then try to draw up terms of reference. We should have a debate, based on the evidence and the arguments that we have heard this morning. The last thing that we should do is begin an inquiry when members have different ideas about what we are discussing. We all agree on the principle, but as this is such a sensitive issue, we should take a wee bit of time to sort out the terms of reference properly.

I do not think that there is so much confusion about the terms of reference—the issue is quite simple. In response to what Richard Simpson said, I say that it is inconceivable that we could invite representatives from the Haemophilia Society to give evidence and then tell them that they can only discuss certain aspects of the matter. We should take evidence from the society on the points on which it disagrees with the Executive's report, or on which it thinks that the report has not been exhaustive and has not taken into account particular pieces of evidence. It would be fair to tell the society that we expect it to be quite focused so that we do not go back over matters that are not disputed by the Executive or the society. We should also ask about any new evidence—in relation to screening, for example—that was not examined for the report. If we agree to do that, what we are trying to achieve becomes clearer.

At the end of the process, we may conclude that the Executive report is fine—we can decide that once we have taken evidence. It may be that the only aspect that we will want to address is the new evidence about screening. However, it is inconceivable that we should tell the Haemophilia Society that it should give evidence only on the part of the issue that we want to hear about.

If I recollect correctly, the area of contention was the chronology of what happened. That information exists. In fact, we addressed much of that when Susan Deacon attended the committee. It is important that we do not try to conduct the investigation again and that we focus on one or two clear points on which we could make some progress. We received a lot of information in the report, and accepted much of it. The chronology of events was, however, the issue. We could ask about that and the new evidence on screenings.

The other matter about which the Haemophilia Society is unhappy is how the report addressed the manner in which people were informed of risks in advance of treatment, and the manner in which people were dealt with after they contracted hepatitis C. The society will want to raise that as well.

The Executive's report was meant to deal with that, but committee members may recall that when the minister dealt with it, questions of confidentiality were raised. I do not know whether the Haemophilia Society believes that those issues can be overcome. The society will raise questions about the report's chronology and will discuss whether people were informed and, if so, how. We have not touched on that.

Will our clerks produce a note on the issues that members think should be raised? I remain concerned that we will try to repeat the inquiry. If we are to do that, we must appoint a special adviser, take evidence from absolutely everybody and do the task properly, but I do not think that that is our role. We should focus on our concerns. We can draw up a list, send it to the Haemophilia Society and find out whether the society agrees with it. I do not mind that. However, I do not wish us to go back into the entire inquiry again.

We should take evidence from the Haemophilia Society about its concerns. Then, by all means, the clerks should draw up the note on the issues that the committee wants to progress with. We may think that some of the society's concerns are not justified. However, in fairness to the society, we must give it the opportunity to tell us about its disagreements with the report, what new evidence it has and what its concerns are. After that, we can boil down the issues.

I agree. We have heard the minister speak to her report. The Haemophilia Society has intimated that it is not happy with the report. As things stand, if the minister refuses to meet members of the society—and that appears to be the situation—natural justice demands that we should hear from the Haemophilia Society. That will allow the society to put on record its thoughts about how the report has not gone far enough, which I think will relate to how information was passed on to the people involved. The society will be able to dispute points about chronology and other matters in the report. We must hear the other side of the argument, from the Haemophilia Society.

Hearing from the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service would allow us to clarify some of the screening questions and any other issues that we may hear about from the Haemophilia Society. After that, the committee will have all the information that it will need on which to make decisions on the following questions. First, did the Executive's report go far enough? Secondly, do we want the Executive to do further work?

The screening issue has been brought up late in the day, so we could point that out to the Executive. Further work may be required on the question of non-haemophiliacs who have contracted hepatitis C. We would have to consider whether the committee should suggest that somebody—or ourselves—should take on further work. My gut reaction is that the committee would not do such work.

The committee can decide whether further work is required from the Executive or others only on the basis of evidence from the Haemophilia Society, the SNBTS and the minister. We would decide on an inquiry only when we had covered all the issues and had a chance to ask the main players about them. At the moment, we have heard only the minister's point of view, and we have had to take account of new developments.

I suggest that the committee undertakes to speak to the Haemophilia Society and the SNBTS. After receiving information from them, the committee will be able to decide how to proceed and whether further work is needed from anyone, including the committee. Our view is broad. We have two petitions that cover the haemophilia issue with the SNBTS, the ways in which people are acquiring hepatitis C and the manner in which we have dealt with blood products. The fact that we have two petitions on the matter has already broadened the issue out. Are there any comments from members?

If the Haemophilia Society could list the areas that concern it following the Executive's publication of its inquiry, we could cross-reference that with the areas that we have already dealt with. That would keep our work quite narrow, rather than rehashing what we have already dealt with.

We have not dealt with anything. We have heard the minister give evidence on her report. As Margaret Jamieson said, we have heard one side of the story. Natural justice would suggest that we should hear the other side and give the Haemophilia Society—

We heard from the Haemophilia Society.

Yes, but not in response to the report. We should give the Haemophilia Society the opportunity to respond. I agree that, after that, we have to focus on what we do next and on what progress we can make. However, to try to shut the debate down before we have heard one side of it is not fair.

The minister gave a commitment to the committee. She seems to be saying something different from what the Haemophilia Society is saying. It is reasonable for the committee to write to the minister to remind her of the commitment that was given to the committee and to indicate that we expect her to fulfil that commitment. In the event that that commitment is not fulfilled, it is within the competence of the committee to ask the minister to come back before us. At that point, we can undertake some of the functions that a meeting with the Haemophilia Society would have fulfilled. It is not right that the minister should make one statement to a committee and give a completely different message to the organisation that the commitment concerned.

On the general point that is raised in the petition, I wonder whether we are going way beyond the agenda item. On the basis of some of the evidence that has come forward, I think that there is an argument for retracing our steps on haemophilia. Perhaps we could conduct an investigation or produce a report. However, if we stick to the issue that is raised in the petition, that might not be possible. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that we are talking about a petition from Thomas McKissock.

Yes, and one from the west of Scotland group of the Haemophilia Society.

The petition from Thomas McKissock deals with a specific issue. We need to determine what we will do about that. However, the other petition calls for a public inquiry. To some extent, we have been over that argument previously. If we think that it is legitimate to have a revolving inquiry in the committee and for us to rehash matters every time a decision is made, every petitioner will ask us to go over subjects again, even although we have already undertaken work. There is an argument for saying that new evidence on the issue should be examined carefully, but we need to separate what we have done from what we are trying to do. I think that the committee will create a rod for its own back on a range of issues if it starts rehashing work that it has already done.

I am not aware that we have closed our inquiry. Nicola Sturgeon is correct when she says that Susan Deacon used her time to talk about her report. We have not listened to the Haemophilia Society's opinion of the report. It would only be good manners, having heard from one side, to hear from the other. That is very important. When we have heard that, we can decide on a course of action.

This is not just about the petitions—we agreed to discuss the letter from the Haemophilia Society at the same time as the petitions. The letter states that the society disagrees with the report and would like to bring its views to the committee. Anything short of allowing the Haemophilia Society to give evidence and voice its concerns would be totally inadequate. We should decide what to do after having heard the evidence. At this stage, all we need to do is to agree that we will listen to the views of the Haemophilia Society. There has been a suggestion that we listen to the views of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service at the same time. That seems reasonable. After we have heard that evidence, we can decide whether we should begin another inquiry.

I do not agree with Hugh Henry that such a decision would compromise us in the future. The case is unusual. We cannot ignore the direct petitioners or the Haemophilia Society. I hope that this is a one-off, although it may not be. If necessary, we should make recommendations as to whether there should be compensation.

We have not decided what sort of evidence to take. We should ask the Haemophilia Society to detail in writing its objections to the report. All we have is a statement that the society is not happy with the people who carried out the inquiry. We need more details. The oral evidence should rest on questions that arise from the written evidence. We should also ask the society to present evidence on screening.

I want to pull together the various suggestions for action. I did not recall—and nor did the clerk—that we had decided that, once we questioned the minister about hepatitis C, that would be the end of the matter. We asked her about several issues on that day; we took advantage of her presence to ask several questions because we had not had responses to six letters. Our final letter said that, if we did not receive a response, we would ask questions when the minister appeared before us to answer questions on other matters. That was why we took that approach.

I agree with the points made by Nicola Sturgeon, Hugh Henry and me. [Laughter.] I may change my mind, but not during a meeting. Given that the minister assured the committee that she would be happy to meet representatives of the Haemophilia Society, it would be perfectly reasonable for the committee to write to say that we expect her to honour that commitment. That would give the society a chance to discuss the issue with her face to face. Does the committee agree to that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

The second point relates to the wider issue raised in the petition from Mr McKissock, on hepatitis C being contracted by non-haemophiliacs through health treatment provided by the NHS. Is the committee happy to request a research note on that issue, so that we can revisit the matter at a future meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

I suggest that we invite the Haemophilia Society and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service to give evidence. It would be reasonable for us to ask the Haemophilia Society to outline in advance its areas of disagreement with the report and the subjects that the society believes the report has not fully covered.

The Haemophilia Society is concerned about the secondary issue of the information available to patients not having been investigated as much as it could have been. Some of its concerns might be about not only the content of the report, but the breadth of the secondary part of the inquiry. If we ask the society to outline its concerns in writing, that would give us the opportunity to concentrate on the appropriate areas when taking oral evidence. It is important, with both the Haemophilia Society and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, to use the new information that has been given to The Scotsman and to other parties on the screening programme. That links into the chronological aspects raised by Irene Oldfather.

Frankly, I do not believe that the committee will be able to carry out a full inquiry into the haemophilia and hepatitis C situations; we do not have the research resources to take on that task, although I mean no disrespect to the research resources that we have. However, after hearing the evidence from all sides, we will be better placed to say whether we believe that the Executive's report is adequate, whether the Executive should modify the report and whether other avenues, such as a full, independent public inquiry, should be pursued. The point at which the committee can make such decisions is after we have heard from the three major players. We have heard from the Executive, but we have not heard from the Haemophilia Society or the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service. I suggest to the committee that that is the way in which we should proceed.

We are going to invite the Haemophilia Society, but the petitioner is from the west of Scotland group of the Haemophilia Society. How do we work that out?

When investigating petitions in the past, we have not always questioned the petitioner. We have taken on board the tone, spirit and letter of a petition and have then taken information and evidence from other people in order to arrive at a position. We can clarify this with the Haemophilia Society, but I presume that the west of Scotland group would be happy to be represented by the society, of which the group is an offshoot. There should not be a problem with that, but we can clarify the situation.

I will let Ben Wallace in, but I would like to get to a decision on this.

Many of us—including Hugh Henry and Irene Oldfather—supported Brian Adam when he called for an independent inquiry on hepatitis C. We ought therefore to continue with that, ensuring that we hear the minister's response before proceeding.

Can I respond to that?

Yes—I think that you have to.

I do not think that we are arguing otherwise. We have been saying that the committee should not retrace the ground that it has already covered but should try to move on. I remind Ben Wallace that I said that we should move forward on the basis of some of the new evidence that has come to light.

Other issues flow from this matter, and not just on haemophilia. Will we be opening the door to any group that wants us to question Executive reports, regardless of the issue? We should consider issues of procedure. Nothing that I have said contradicts the views that I have expressed in committee or outside it.

Let me clarify the matter for the committee. We are dealing with petitions that came to us in the normal way. The committee's response to the petition from the west of Scotland group of the Haemophilia Society was influenced by the fact that the Executive had intimated that it was going to commission an on-going report. Had that report not been undertaken, the committee might have taken a different approach to the petition, but we decided to wait for the Executive's response before we acted on the issue.

I suggest that the committee agrees to the course of action that I outlined a few minutes ago. Are there any objections to that course of action?

My objection is that the organisations that you will invite to give evidence are the two protagonists in the case—the Haemophilia Society, with its concerns over the report and the screening, and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service. I recommend that you, as the convener, also invite an independent expert, so that we can receive evidence from someone who is not directly engaged in the conflict.

Do members have any problems with that?

Although Richard Simpson may have the right idea, he is perhaps a bit ahead of the process, as that is a decision that we should make after we have heard the evidence from the Haemophilia Society and the blood transfusion service. At that stage, we can determine whether we require independent advice.

Does the committee agree to the course of action that I suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

We can revisit the situation when we have taken evidence.

Petition PE145 is from Mr Bill Welsh and concerns the vaccination for mumps, measles and rubella. Mary Scanlon is working on this issue as a committee reporter. Mary, can you give us an update on the situation?

The starting point for the petition was concern over parental choice on the MMR vaccine. In my early reading on the subject, I have found that, although some parents and medical practitioners are adamant that there is a link between the vaccination and autism, others, including public health officials, are equally adamant that there is no link.

I have attended several meetings and conferences on the subject and I have amassed lots of reading material, which I shall need two or three days to get through. Just as you will be reading up on the joint future group over the recess, convener, so I shall use the recess to read up on this issue. It is the sort of project that cannot be pursued while phones are ringing and so on. I intend to undertake all the reading over the Christmas recess. So much research is being conducted that I am slightly worried that I shall not return to the committee with the conclusive evidence that many of us are hoping for.

This is an extremely complex issue and the Dáil's Joint Committee on Health and Children is taking evidence on it at the moment. I talked to Richard Simpson about it, as I value his input, but I would like to visit the Irish Parliament by the end of January.

On your way back from Finland?

Yes.

The Irish Parliament is taking evidence and considering all sorts of information. Moreover, I have yet to read the report of the Kenneth Calman investigation. I have a lot of information. There are genuine concerns, but I have not reached any conclusions. I would like to take advantage of the evidence that will be taken in the Irish Parliament—and have a holiday. I will report back to the committee at the end of January or the beginning of February.

If the committee is happy with the principle, Mary Scanlon and I will investigate whether the timing of the evidence taking by the Dáil committee would make it helpful for her to go there. Like all decisions on whether a committee member can travel, the matter would then be referred to the conveners group. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Mary Scanlon will then report back to the committee on her visit at the beginning of the year.

Malcolm Chisholm was working on a report on fuel poverty, which I believe is incomplete. He has not made up his mind what he thinks, but we have some of the evidence that he took. It would not be a major piece of work to complete the report and I am looking for a volunteer to do that.

I will do it. Such things as allowances have changed in the past few weeks. Should I contact Malcolm Chisholm directly?

Yes.

Is there a deadline?

You should look at the material first and then tell me when you think you can finish the report. Is the proposal that Dorothy-Grace Elder act as reporter on fuel poverty agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The final petition is from Glenorchy and Innishail community council general practitioners who have to run a practice single-handedly. Margaret Jamieson was appointed as our reporter on this matter.

I have met the Scottish Medical Practices Committee, the British Medical Association, the Scottish Executive and the medical director of the primary care trust in my area. However, I have put the matter on the back burner while we await the health plan. I will reassess the situation on Friday and speak to Jennifer Smart. I did not want to do much work on this before we had learned whether the health plan addresses the issue.

That is the end of this agenda item. I understand that Ben Wallace wishes to say something on the record before we move into private session.

As some of us will no longer be members of the committee in January, I place on record my thanks to the clerks, Jennifer Smart, Joanna Hardy and Irene Fleming, who keep the committee going and without whom we could not work. I also thank the convener and those members who are staying for putting up with me.

I will speak briefly on the changes that are being made to the committee. This has been one of the best committees of the Parliament. I know that because I sit on another committee, the European Committee—although that is no slight to its convener, Hugh Henry. The Health and Community Care Committee deals with a difficult and sensitive issue, and I am proud of what I have achieved with other members.

I think that the restructuring of the committees is wrong and will probably say so in the chamber. It did not result from a recommendation from the Procedures Committee, but was cobbled up by business managers over the past year, who have approached us with different forms of arm twisting, bribes and threats.

I am glad that I let you put this on the record.

I do not think that the restructuring has been born out of a desire to seek better accountability or the better operation of the committee. It has been the result of the views of certain MSPs from different groups who have their own reasons. I do not think that that is a good basis on which the Parliament should proceed. Changes to the structure of committees are not best handled by a coterie of MSPs, but should be decided by the Procedures Committee, for which Parliament is bigger than the parties. That would lead to a procedure that befits a Parliament rather than a procedure that merely suits the way in which our groups work.

Most important, I would like to say thank you. I have learned much and will miss being a member of the committee. I will certainly try to turn up sometimes to annoy members. I wish members all the best for the future.

Thank you, Ben—mild to the end. Some members will be leaving the committee and we will begin the new year with a clean sheet and new personnel in place. I thank all members for their hard work and support. I wish everybody a happy Christmas and a good new year. Those of us who have reading to do will be kept out of mischief for part—not all, I hope—of the time. I will see you all in the new year.

Meeting continued in private until 12:27.