The next five petitions are linked, in that they were all submitted by the same organisation. PE631 is on the lasting effects of prescribed neuroleptic and similar drugs. PE638 is on the prescription of vitamin supplements for nutritional imbalances. PE639 is on the storage and dispensing of national health service-prescribed drugs in schools. PE640 is on banning the prescription of neuroleptic and similar drugs to children. PE663 is on support and information services on learning difficulties.Petition PE631 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to investigate the effect on the future employment, housing and insurance cover of individuals who were prescribed neuroleptic and similar drugs as children. PE638 calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate whether certain vitamin supplements should be prescribed by the NHS to help children with a nutritional imbalance caused by an addiction to NHS-prescribed drugs. PE639 calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the storage and dispensing of NHS-prescribed drugs in schools. PE640 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ban the prescription of neuroleptic and similar drugs to children. PE663 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the need for support and information services for parents of children with learning difficulties and behavioural problems is recognised by the Scottish Executive.The Executive provided a detailed response to each of the petitions, while pointing out a number of issues that impact on reserved matters. Members have had a chance to read the responses. What do you think?
Official Report · Committee
Current Petitions
NHS Prescribed Drugs (Effects on Children) (PE631, PE638, PE639 and PE640) Children with Learning Difficulties (Support and Information) (PE663)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Michael McMahon Lab 3
- Carolyn Leckie SSP 1
- Helen Eadie Lab 1
The record
5 contributionsI think that we should ask for the petitioner's view of the responses; he will probably be able to pick up on more issues than I could, although a couple of things in the Executive response concern me. In the second paragraph under the heading "PE361: Effects on Future Employment, Housing and Insurance Cover for Individuals", the response states:"From a pharmacological point of view neuroleptic drugs are reversible inhibitors. They are excreted from the body over a period of weeks or months".My understanding—and I do not think that I am wrong—is that there is limited research on the effect of such drugs on children. The physiology of children is very different from that of adults. I am concerned at the assertion that has been made in the absence—I think—of adequate research. I think that the matter needs to be examined further, and the Executive needs to take responsibility for ensuring that that happens. Paragraph 4, under the heading "PE640: Ban on the Prescribing of Neuroleptic and Other Brain Altering Drugs in Children", states:"Finally, in relation to a national data base of children prescribed neuroleptic and other drugs, the prescription data available centrally are not patient-specific and do not identify the condition for which the medicine has been prescribed … Data on items dispensed in hospitals or hospital-based clinics are not collated centrally."That is an absence in the system. There is concern that there is a trend towards an increase in the prescription of such drugs. If the data on the number of children being prescribed those drugs are not being monitored by the Executive, then that is an absence. It is incumbent on the Executive to examine both the data and the consequences. We take responsibility for health policy and it is not acceptable simply to leave the control of trends in this area to individual general practitioners. It is the responsibility of the Parliament to look into the issues. I am happy for the petitioner to be asked his views first, but I would think that there would be merit in the Health Committee examining some of the issues at some stage.
Will we wait until we see what comments the petitioner makes on each point?
I agree that we should do that. Paragraph 4 of the page of the Executive's response concerning PE639 comments that the Health Department's chief scientist office, or CSO, has"no current plans to commission research into ADHD but would be pleased to consider proposals for such research which would, of course, be subject to the usual peer and committee review."I would like the Executive to be a little more proactive than that and put out a call for that research. Otherwise, the Executive is heavily reliant on the general public reading the detail of the various documents that are in front of us now to pick up on that scope for possible research. From other discussions that we have had on the matter, I think that there is a clear case to be made on the whole issue of supplements and alternative treatments, whether for children or for adults. There needs to be some more detailed research in that area.
I agree—that is a good question to ask the Executive—but that would have to wait until we get a response back from the petitioner. The petitions will come back before us once we have seen the response, and we can make that point at that stage. We will keep the petitions open, with the prospect of getting more information from the petitioner. Is everyone happy with that?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 31 Mar 2004 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Wednesday 31 March 2004 (Morning) Petitions · 1
- Items in Private Procedure · 2
- New Petitions Petitions · 66
- New Petitions Petitions · 45
- New Petitions Petitions · 34
- New Petitions Petitions · 5
- New Petitions Petitions · 17
- New Petitions Petitions · 22
- Current Petitions Petitions · 11
- Current Petitions Petitions · 7
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
- Current Petitions Petitions · 7
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Committee Event Committee business · 17
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.