- Asked by: Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Socialist Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 16 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 6 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the public statements by England’s Chief Medical Officer and supported by the Department of Health, what peer-reviewed and published scientific evidence there is to substantiate the statement that “science shows that a baby’s immune system can cope with thousands of vaccines.”
Answer
I refer you to the officialjournal of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Pediatrics and the paperentitled
Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm orWeaken the Infant’s Immune System? P. A. Offit, J. Quarles, M. A. Gerber,C. J. Hackett, E. K. Marcuse, T. R. Kollman, B. G. Gellin and S. Landry (2002) Pediatrics;109 124-129. The online version of this article, along with updated informationis available at
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124.
- Asked by: Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Socialist Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 16 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 6 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the public statements by England’s Chief Medical Officer and supported by the Department of Health, what peer-reviewed and published scientific evidence there is to substantiate the statement that vaccinated children in the UK grow up more healthy than unvaccinated children.
Answer
The precise statement madeby England’s Chief Medical Officer on The Midday News Radio 5 Live show on Wednesday 8 February 2006 was as follows, “And all the studies show that children who arevaccinated are much healthier than children who aren't even against the otherdiseases which they are not being vaccinated against”.
SirLiam Donaldson was referring tothe study showing that after children had been vaccinated, they were actuallyless likely to get an infection following the period of vaccination. Thepublished article is:
Bacterial infections,immune overload, and MMR vaccine. Measles, mumps, and rubella. Miller E, Andrews N, Waight P, Taylor B. Arch DisChild. 2003 Mar;88(3):222-3.
The publication is availableat http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/88/3/222.
- Asked by: Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Socialist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Lewis Macdonald on 6 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with the Care Commission and public bodies with reference to the efficacy of the current monitoring, regulatory and statutory framework in respect of NHS patients in contracted beds.
Answer
I refer the member to the answer to question S2W-23332 on 6 March 2006. All answers to written parliamentary questions are availableon the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
- Asked by: Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Socialist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Lewis Macdonald on 6 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to monitor, review and issue advice on the contractual arrangements and regulatory framework between the Care Commission, public bodies and the private sector in light of the case of Mrs Alma Murray, whilst a patient in an NHS-contracted bed at the BUPA Hatton Lea Nursing home in Bellshill.
Answer
The Scottish Executive HealthDepartment issued guidance in September 2005, to health boards about their responsibilityfor commissioning health services provided by the independent sector. This was developedin consultation with the Care Commission and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, andis available at
http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/sehd/mels/HDL2005_41.pdf.
The guidance sets out the responsibilityof NHS boards for ensuring that appropriate contracting and clinical governancearrangements are in place. The Care Commission and NHS Quality Improvement Scotlandwork closely together to monitor and review the quality of care in the independentsector, based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the organisations.
We will keep the effectivenessof these arrangements in relation to NHS boards under review, and they will be consideredby NHS Quality Improvement Scotland as part of the review of Clinical Governanceand Risk Management standards which is due to start later this year.
- Asked by: Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Socialist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 3 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive how the 2006-07 NHS spending plans, announced on 20 February 2006, reflect the actual redistribution of funding according to the Arbuthnott formula and what the funding would have been had the Arbuthnott formula been applied in full to each NHS board.
Answer
When the Arbuthnott formula was introduced in 2000-01, it was agreed that, in order to ensure no detrimental effects, no Board would lose funding and moves to target allocations would be achieved by a levelling up process. Since then, all boards have received a standard uplift annually to meet the cost of pay and price increases, increases in the cost of prescribed drugs and developments. In addition those boards below their target share of resources under the Arbuthnott formula receive additional funding. For 2006-07 all boards received a standard uplift of 6.75% with an additional £30 million allocated to those boards below their Arbuthnott target share of resources. Details of actual allocations for 2006-07 and Arbuthnott target shares are as follows:
| NHS Board | Actual General Allocation 2006-07 (£ Million) | Target Arbuthnott Allocation (£ Million) | Difference Between Target Allocation and Actual Allocation (£ Million) |
| Ayrshire and Arran | 496.914 | 501.528 | 4.614 |
| Borders | 143.455 | 145.444 | 1.989 |
| Dumfries and Galloway | 207.375 | 209.930 | 2.555 |
| Fife | 430.918 | 436.417 | 5.499 |
| Forth Valley | 338.619 | 342.095 | 3.476 |
| Grampian | 583.490 | 584.691 | 1.201 |
| Greater Glasgow | 1,634.850 | 1,602.696 | -32.154 |
| Highland | 419.558 | 423.452 | 3.894 |
| Lanarkshire | 686.476 | 694.547 | 8.071 |
| Lothian | 868.621 | 875.017 | 6.396 |
| Orkney | 26.852 | 27.045 | 0.193 |
| Shetland | 31.812 | 28.410 | -3.402 |
| Tayside | 516.958 | 516.346 | -0.612 |
| Western Isles | 50.307 | 48.587 | -1.720 |
| Total | 6,436.205 | 6,436.205 | |
- Asked by: Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Socialist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 2 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether any products produced in the Protein Fractionation Centre in Edinburgh have been recalled.
Answer
There has been no recall of productsfrom the Protein Fractionation Centre (PFC)following the recent Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)inspection.
- Asked by: Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Socialist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 2 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether products issued by the Protein Fractionation Centre in Edinburgh at a time when production conditions were considered to be unacceptable will be administered to patients.
Answer
I refer the member to the answerto question S2W-22996 on 2 March 2006. All answers to written parliamentary questions are availableon the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
- Asked by: Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Socialist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 2 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive what will happen to the products produced in the Protein Fractionation Centre in Edinburgh in the period preceding the shutdown of the plant.
Answer
The Scottish National Blood TransfusionService are continuing to issue products from the Protein Fractionation Centre inconsultation with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
- Asked by: Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Socialist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 2 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive what circumstances caused the shutdown of the Protein Fractionation Centre in Edinburgh.
Answer
There is a statutory requirementfor pharmaceutical producers to be inspected by the Medicines and Healthcare ProductsRegulatory Agency (MHRA) within a two year period. In 2004 MHRA highlighted a needto upgrade systems and procedures at the ProteinFractionation Centre (PFC) to ensure continuedcompliance with current EU Good Manufacturing Practice regulations, and follow-upaction was taken to implement improvements. An inspection by MHRA in January identifiedfurther areas where improvement is needed. As a result PFC has suspended the productionof plasma products to allow the development and introduction of these upgrades.
- Asked by: Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Socialist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 2 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive what risks to the safe production of products have been identified at the Protein Fractionation Centre in Edinburgh.
Answer
An inspection by the Medicinesand Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in January 2006 identified a needto upgrade systems and procedures at the Protein Fractionation Centre (PFC), andaction is being taken forward to implement these upgrades. Risk assessments on productsmanufactured by PFC have been carried out and communicated to the MHRA. These assessmentshave not identified any significant risks to product safety.
