MMR Vaccine (Hansard, 7 February 2002)

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I most certainly agree with him. However, many parents have been wrongly convinced by the media that MMR vaccines are not safe. Now that we are told that single vaccines are no longer available, can the Minister say how the Government will prevent an outbreak of these horrible diseases?

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I should, first, pay tribute to the noble Lord for the role that he played towards the development and the introduction of MMR when serving in my department in the 1980s. I can tell the House that the figures are quite striking. There were 85,642 notifications of measles in 1988, whereas the figure for 1999 was 2,438. I believe that those figures show that the introduction of the MMR vaccination was one of the most outstanding public health measures taken by this country for many years.
The noble Lord is absolutely right to emphasise that the key issue here is how to ensure that parents do decide to take their children to surgeries to have MMR vaccines. The Government have a health promotion programme. Many information packs have been made available to general practitioners and other health professionals. In addition, information is available on the Department of Health's website and through the NHS Direct health helpline. But, clearly, more needs to be done. I repeat: the evidence that has been most 739 carefully considered by the relevant expert committees reinforces the point that the MMR vaccine is tried and tested, and that it is the safest way to protect children. We must redouble our efforts to get that message across to the community as a whole.

§ Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, does the Minister agree that informed medical opinion across the world is satisfied that the risks of MMR inoculation are minuscule and, indeed, as many people are now advocating, that they are significantly less than those of multiple inoculations? Does he also agree that there has been some misinformed opinion in the public press suggesting that the inoculation of boys against rubella is unnecessary? Rubella is a very mild disorder, but it is very infectious. Boys so infected could easily pass the disease on to their sisters or mothers with the consequent risks of producing foetal malformations due to rubella contracted during pregnancy.

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord. Again, I should emphasise that the figures in relation to rubella are equally striking. The notifications in 1989 were 24,570, but that figure decreased to 1,653 in the year 2000. Not only has the MMR vaccination been considered by the relevant advisory committees in this country; many of the medical and health bodies in this country have also endorsed its use. It is used widely throughout the world. I am convinced that getting the message across to the public with the support of all the organisations suggested by the noble Lord will be effective in increasing the immunisation rates, which have fallen to a lowish level. We must do everything we can to increase them.

§ Lord Rea
My Lords, I speak as a one-time epidemiologist. Does my noble friend agree with me that the methodology of the study that linked autism and bowel disease to the MMR vaccination was deeply flawed, depending, as it did. on 12 self-selected cases only without adequate controls?

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the various reports recently reviewed in the media have either been studied carefully by the Government's advisory committees and experts, or, in the case of a report published earlier this week, will be considered. Studies show that expert researches using the most sensitive molecular tests have been unable to find the measles virus in the bowel tissues of patients with bowel disease, which is one of the issues that has been raised. Aside from this, the key fact for parents is that studies looking directly at whether MMR causes either inflammatory bowel disease or autism have found no link.

§ Earl Howe
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Official Opposition have repeatedly stated their full support for the MMR vaccine? However, should we not address the situation as we find it rather than as we would like it to be? As outbreaks of measles are now 740 occurring, can the Minister tell the House what is the Government's message to those parents who, for their own reasons, have chosen to refuse MMR vaccinations for their children?

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I must say that I find the noble Earl's comment about the Official Opposition's support for MMR to be surprising. That was not the impression that I gained from the statement made by Dr Fox yesterday. I take my hat off to the Opposition for the work that they carried out in the 1980s to introduce the MMR vaccine. As I said earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, played a very important role in that introduction, which had a dramatic effect in reducing the incidence of these diseases in this country. The emphasis here must be on raising public confidence in MMR. We are committed to that end. I believe that the statements made today by the Chief Medical Officer and other medical organisations in this country will start the process. However, we need to do more; and we shall.

§ Baroness Northover
My Lords, is the Minister aware of how pleased I am to hear the House speak with one voice on this matter, unlike the exchanges yesterday in the other place? Does the noble Lord accept that some parents are confused and worried about whether the risk of having the triple vaccine is greater than the risk of not having it? Therefore, what does the noble Lord plan to do in the short term to bring the weight of the evidence to public attention, and will he draw parallels with the whooping cough outbreak in the 1980s? As for the longer term, does the Minister recognise that it is only by having transparency and openness in public health matters post-BSE, and those scandals, that he will maintain public confidence in the advice given on public health affairs?

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Yes, my Lords; I very much agree with the noble Baroness. As I mentioned earlier, information is made available to parents through the Department of Health's website and NHS Direct, as well as being available in local GP surgeries. Clearly, we cannot be complacent in the matter. We must redouble our efforts. In the past two days the Government have signalled their determination to do so.
The issue regarding whooping cough is apposite. Many noble Lords will recall the concerns raised in the 1970s and 1980s about the whooping cough vaccine, which were later shown to be unfounded. However, as a result of those concerns, parents were offered a choice of vaccines with, or without, the whooping cough component. Over 50 per cent of parents at that time opted for the vaccine without the whooping cough component. Many of their children caught the disease, thousands were admitted to hospital and more than 100 died. That must be a lesson to us all in relation to the current situation. We must not repeat that experience.

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, is there not a responsibility not only on the Government to be open 741 and transparent but also on the media to end a culture of reporting science that has gone beyond an appropriate and legitimate challenge to orthodoxy to the point of elevating the maverick view and denigrating world-wide evidence and authoritative views? On the issue of individual choice, is it not the responsibility of government in the conext of a public health measure such as vaccination to consider not only the choice offered to individual parents who want to have a less effective measure for their children, but the effect on the children of other people who do not make the same choice and who have babies too young—the babies are, therefore, at risk—and children such as those with leukaemia who cannot be vaccinated?

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. The campaigns in some newspapers for a single vaccine are highly irresponsible. The policy of having a single vaccine in place of MMR is untested. Single vaccines used in place of MMR increase the risk of a child getting the disease. The doctor who proposed it, Dr Wakefield, has also said that the interval between those jabs should be at least a year. In the case of single vaccines to cover mumps, rubella and measles, that would mean six jabs over a period of six years.
Anyone who has raised children will know that if we had that situation instead of two MMR jabs, the risk of children not completing the course would be great. During that period, people will not have the protection that MMR gives. It is abundantly clear that we should support MMR and do everything we can to get that information through to parents.