Hansard

It has been a short but well-informed debate. I do not mean to sound patronising when I say that it was clear to me that nearly every contributor to the debate was contributing because they wished to contribute rather than because they had been asked to contribute and did not necessarily volunteer to do so, which is the impression that we sometimes get from one or two speakers in a debate. It was therefore no surprise that there was no disagreement among members on the issue. However, we heard a collection of anecdotes about different experiences, all of which underpinned the importance of the vaccination and immunisation programme.

I thought that the three principal speeches—those by the minister, in which he detailed the public health benefits of the various immunisation programmes and Scotland’s record on all the key vaccines, by Richard Simpson and by Nanette Milne—gave a rounded picture of the history of immunisation and the success that Scotland has had in it.

Without repeating what has already been said, it seems to me as someone who is not a doctor—several doctors have taken part in the debate—that the key thing is that politicians are not generally experts and that, although public scepticism towards experts has been a growing modern phenomenon, given the rather curious specialisms in which people can claim to be experts, we must mount a vigorous campaign to ensure that the public suspend any scepticism towards clinical and pharmaceutical experts, because we must trust their judgment on the introduction, the sustainment or the withdrawal of individual vaccination programmes.

The minister and others were right to highlight just how quickly a disease can take root. The MMR crisis of a few years ago gave us a sharp reminder of what can happen if we allow those who are sceptical about the advice that we receive and act on to enable that scepticism to take root in operational practice.

The human papilloma virus has been mentioned several times. The vaccination for HPV, which was introduced relatively recently, is an extremely important one. In some detail and at some length, Aileen McLeod spelled out just what its benefits are and how successful it has been. However, several members will have attended meetings at which representations have been made and concerns have been expressed to them about the vaccine’s introduction. Even today, some of us have been emailed with evidence from Japan on the issue.

The important point that I make to them echoes the comments with which I opened my speech. It is the duty and the responsibility of Parliament not to react to that, but to trust the judgment of those who give ministers the evidence and advice on which they must act, and to exemplify—as Aileen McLeod did—the benefits and advantages that the introduction of such vaccines has brought.

I listened to Patrick Harvie’s intervention on the extension of the provision of the HPV vaccination to young men; Jim Eadie touched on that, too. As a member of the Public Petitions Committee, I heard representations on that issue, and I hope that evidence is gathered and advice is given that allows a fresh recommendation to follow.

Richard Simpson mentioned that 14 vaccines are given to people throughout their lives. He also introduced the subject of smallpox. I commend the recent BBC 4 series that showed just how astonishing the progress has been in eliminating that disease, which ravaged various parts of the world recently enough for the contemporary footage to be in graphic colour. Watching the programme, I realised that, although I might have seen one or two sensationalised photographs, to see not those in this country, to whom we have paid tribute, but those who in the 1960s and 1970s volunteered to go and eradicate that disease in other parts of the world, and to recognise just how unassuming and ordinary the individuals who made that commitment and achieved that success were, is—given how devastating and damaging smallpox had been—to be confronted with a redefinition of the concept of heroism.

The big challenge will be not just the current situations but the enormous clinical, surgical and pharmaceutical progress that we are seeing—to which I have referred in other debates—and the challenges that we will face in keeping pace with the opportunities that future vaccinations will provide. That is the challenge that the Government must address in the future, but I think that we all support and commend it for the work that it has done to date and the response that it has made to the challenges that exist.