Policy responses and statements
- Name of organisation:
- The Scottish Parliament - Health and Sport Committee
- Name of policy document:
- Call for Written Evidence on the Public Health etc. (Scotland) Bill
- Deadline for response:
- 18 January 2008
Background: The Scottish Parliament’s Health and Sport Committee agreed to call for evidence seeking views from all interested parties on the general principles of the Public Health etc. (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced by the Scottish Government on 25 October 2007.
The Committee intends that evidence received will inform its consideration of the Bill at Stage 1. The main purposes of the Bill are to:
- restate and amend the law on public health;
- make provision about mortuaries and the disposal of bodies;
- enable the Scottish Ministers to implement their obligations under the International Health Regulations;
- enable provision to be made in relation to the provision of information to users on the effects on health of sunbeds;
- to amend the law on statutory nuisances; and
- for connected purposes.
The Committee has access to a summary of material gathered by the Scottish Government in its consultation on the proposals for the Bill and was therefore seeking additional submissions relating only to the Bill as introduced. The Committee invited the views of all interested parties, organisations and individuals, in written evidence on the following points:
- Do you support the general principles of the Bill and the key provisions it sets out?
- Are there any omissions from the Bill that you would like to see added?
- Have you any comment on the practical implications of putting these provisions in place and the consideration of alternative approaches?
COMMENTS ON
THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT: HEALTH AND SPORT COMMITTEE
CALL FOR WRITTEN EVIDENCE ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the general principles of the Public Health etc. (Scotland) Bill, the main purpose of which is to modernise, clarify, strengthen and amend the law on public health.
The context of new and threatening communicable diseases, rapid global means of dissemination of disease, high expectation of public health security and better surveillance and control possibilities means that clinicians can now look with greater confidence to their work taking place in a supportive, legislative environment.
There are a number of specific issues which are worthy of consideration. For instance, the quarantine power is new, and its use will be where there is potential to save lives and prevent the spread of disease. It is likely to be used infrequently but is appropriate in the new circumstances we find ourselves, in an era of potential nuclear, chemical and biological threats of unknown origin.
In response to the specific consultation questions:
- Do you support the general principles of the Bill and the key provisions it sets out?
The general principles enshrined in the Bill have clear merit. The Bill updates a formidable and important array of legislation including Acts laid down over one hundred years ago. Scotland should have access to powers of intervention appropriate to modern times in order to protect the health of its people. Legislation is likely to be used only on rare but vital occasions. Equally, it is important for public confidence to have balance and fairness in laws designed to protect health, but can infringe liberty and restrict choice.
The evolution of modern infectious diseases like SARS and the impact of increasing world travel and transmissibility of infections require the legislation to be updated at the earliest opportunity. The timing, scope and content of the Bill are welcome.
The section on notification of disease is welcome and overdue; its capacity to be flexible in the face of new diseases and syndrome types is a good feature.
- Are there any omissions from the Bill that you would like to see added?
In line with the Mental Health Act (2003) legislation, powers of compulsory treatment are available. It may be helpful to consider similar powers and similar safeguards for the compulsory treatment of infectious diseases for the protection of the public,as in other countries when treating multi drug resistant tuberculosis where there are compulsory treatment powers to ensure that effective treatment for such conditions is administered to people who refuse to follow appropriate treatment regimes.
Such views are not unanimously held and the rights of the individual to appeal an order, to refuse an appropriate treatment is recognised, but need to be considered due to the impact of those rights on the rights of the population as a whole, and the potential compromise to the rights to health of a person subsequently infected by contact with an individual who unreasonably refuses any appropriate treatment.
Legislators must therefore not underestimate the present and future threat of disease to public health, even with seemingly familiar and curable disease such as TB, and, vitally, the public perception of personal security.
- Have you any comment on the practical implications of putting these provisions in place and the consideration of alternative approaches?
The practical implications of putting these provisions into practice are likely to be minimal in most anticipated circumstances. However, in some circumstances, such provisions may be vital and involve some additional work for health protection agencies and also legal action. There will be training implications for several specialist groups of clinicians from several disciplines to understand the new legal arrangements in relation to their work. We also recommend that the Government encourages debate and discussion on matters of public and professional concern that will arise over time in relation to the human rights and ethical implications of actions taken under the provisions of the Bill when enacted.
The proposals for qualifications of responsible officers drawn from the health-related professions, and the role of clinicians, are balanced and fair. Interests such as our own will monitor carefully the extra demands that may be expected of clinicians, and seek to ensure that standards of practice across the professional disciplines are high and can command public confidence.
It is, therefore, appropriate that the provisions within the Bill should be enacted at the earliest opportunity. If the Bill does not go through, Scotland will once again rely on outdated legislation, albeit well drafted at the time. The risk remains that Scotland’s capacity to respond adequately, effectively and appropriately to Health Protection threats may be compromised without this legislation. Those threats include: new, emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases and other threats to Public Health, Environmental, Chemical, Biological or Radiological.
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh supports this important piece of legislation which will contribute to supporting the effective clinical practice of physicians working in specific demanding roles, and to the management of Scotland’s Health Protection function.
Copies of this response are available from:
Lesley Lockhart,
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh,
9 Queen Street,
Edinburgh,
EH2 1JQ.
Tel: 0131 225 7324 ext 608
Fax: 0131 220 3939
[18 January 2008] |
