Hansard

I am delighted to speak in the debate. I was unaware until I joined the Health and Sport Committee, which I did just before Christmas, of how effective the immunisation programme is, as the minister and Richard Simpson pointed out.

I am delighted also to hear that, given the programme’s record of success, the Scottish Government has identified a need to increase the funding for the immunisation budget. As Jim Eadie said, it rose last year from £8.8 million to £16.3 million. In addition, there are welcome proposals for future rises in the budget.

As I was listening to other members’ speeches, it crossed my mind that we are commemorating the great war this year and that many of those who fought in the terrible conditions of the trenches and thought that they had survived were unfortunately afflicted after the war by a particularly virulent type of flu that ravaged worldwide between 20 million and 40 million people. It was a particularly bad kick in the teeth. However, that demonstrates the type of fight that we have against such viruses.

The improved set-up that we have for virus protection is absolutely important. Some of the very fine speeches during the debate have shown how important it is. I suspect that not many in the chamber have seen the effects of full-blown flu. It is not the sort of flu that people phone into work about; it is very close to having pneumonia. It is not the sort of thing that people live with and get through very quickly before heading back to work. I was therefore delighted that in 2013 the flu vaccine was offered for the first time to children between two and 17, as well as to those who are vulnerable and at risk of suffering serious consequences from flu.

The childhood flu programme is offered to 120,000 two and three-year-olds, and to around 100,000 primary school-aged children. That might help the fight against one of the constant scourges of young children’s health. My father used to refer to children as walking Petri dishes, because everybody in the family got an infection from them when the schools returned after a break and all the kids infected each other. My father could be a little bit sarcastic like that.

For me, the remarkable finding in the recent research to which members have referred is the level of uptake in the Scottish childhood immunisation programme. As has been said, 97 per cent is a phenomenal level of uptake. For those of us who are not up to speed on the research, it would be interesting to know why the other 3 per cent do not take up the immunisation. I know that there are bound to be reasons to do with health, for example.

I welcome the changes that have occurred in the programme over the past year and which have been mentioned in the debate: the introduction of the rotavirus vaccine in May 2013, the changes to the meningitis C vaccine last June and the introduction of the shingles vaccine for those between 70 and 79. I also welcome the speedy introduction of the meningitis B vaccine, which has also been mentioned. I remember the worry that my parents had when a member of my family was diagnosed with meningitis back in the 1960s, when less was known about it. There can be serious consequences for anyone contracting it.

I am aware that I am running out of time. I would love to say more, but I can honestly say that, having researched the subject of immunisation, probably one of the most important things that the Parliament and Government can do is to keep the research going and try to find the answers to some of these horrible problems.