Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 18 Sep 2003

18 Sep 2003 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Improving Scotland's Health

Maclean, Kate Lab Dundee West Watch on SPTV

I am possibly in a minority today, as I have not found the debate particularly useful. Shona Robison, who I think was the second speaker this morning, said that the debate was wide ranging and unfocused and could have been entitled, "Health: discuss." Having sat through the debate today, I suggest that the debate could just as easily have been called, "Predictability: discuss."

The debate has been quite interesting. However, we would hope that, when we have a whole day in which to discuss health without a motion to vote on and when members are not meant to be partisan, the debate would be illuminating and some good ideas would come out of it. We have heard examples of good practice in various parts of Scotland and we have heard about problems in respect of health in Scotland, but those have been discussed before. I do not think that we have heard anything new.

Members have also been a bit partisan. The nationalists tailed off into arguing that the solution to Scotland's health problems is a constitutional one. David Davidson pointed to back-door privatisation of the NHS as the solution to our health problems. However, it was interesting to hear him state that the Conservative party wants

"a health service that responds to the needs of … the patient"

and that we should move away from the

"top-down approach".

He said that as if it had always been the Conservative position on the NHS. That demonstrates that a Scottish Tory in the new user-friendly Tory party can, on occasion, opt for delusion over despair.

My comments perhaps represent an over-simplification of members' positions, but they are pertinent to the point that I want to make. One of the major contributors to the health debate and to forming health policy is the media, which I do not think have been mentioned today—I am one of the members who have sat through the whole debate.

I was interested to hear an item on "Good Morning Scotland" when I was driving through to Edinburgh at some ungodly hour this week—I think it was on Tuesday—about the King's Fund report, "Health in the News". I have read only the summary, although I look forward to reading the full report. The report's analysis of the relationship between politicians, the media and the public seems to go to the crux of our problem with improving public health and the health service in Scotland. Roger Harrabin, who conducted the survey, found that the imbalance in the media coverage of health-related issues means that far more prominence is given to scare stories and to NHS-in-crisis stories than to issues that have justifiably been discussed here today, such as the effects of smoking, alcohol and poverty on health. Most members have mentioned at least one of those issues today.

Even more worrying is the fact that some media coverage is so persuasive that it has an impact on people's behaviour. The most obvious recent example concerns parents who have chosen not to have their children vaccinated with the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. The media coverage about that stemmed from one scientific report that linked MMR with autism. No weight was given to the numerous scientific reports that refuted that link. The coverage by the media—in collusion with politicians; I am not blaming only the media—has led to a significant decrease in the uptake of that vaccine. That could lead to serious health problems for young people in the future.

Another matter that members should all be aware of, but about which we all seem incapable of doing anything, is the effect of the media on us as politicians. We are all guilty of overreacting to media coverage of local health issues. At a local level, the closure of buildings, the opening of new buildings and acute services reviews have us all metaphorically flinging ourselves down in front of the bulldozers.

I have a minute left, so I will have to cut short what I was going to say. There are many examples of cases in which, although the media might not necessarily represent public opinion, they give us the impression that they do and we shape health policy based on that. That gets in the way of our having a dialogue about real issues that affect health in Scotland.

If the media were to use their significant influence to publicise issues that affect health, such as those that have been discussed in the debate, and if politicians tried not to be parochial but to take a wider look at health matters, we could have a serious dialogue that would lead to improvements in health and health care and to radical changes in the way in which we deliver health services. Until the media and politicians can do that, we will not reach that stage—I certainly do not think that we have reached that stage today.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 18 Sep 2003

In the same item of business