The Telegraph reports:

From next month, the health secretary will lose his power to rule which jabs should form part of a national programmes to immunise children against a host of diseases.

Instead, a change in the law will mean recommendations from Government scientists on vaccinations must automatically be followed.

Critics accused the Government of “passing the buck” over contentious decisions to an unelected committee which was answerable to no-one.

But public health experts said an attempt to “depoliticise” decisions about the health of millions could help to restore public confidence in a national programme which has been badly damaged by concerns over the safety of the MMR vaccine.

Under the new law, all decisions taken by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation [JCVI], backed with evidence showing the jabs are cost-effective, must automatically be authorised by the secretary of state for health.

This is a welcome step. Parallels can be made with NICE and the independence of the Bank of England - although both of those are not without controversy.

NICE was created, in part, because of politicians becoming over involved in NHS decision-making about the rationing of drugs. Frank Dobson’s guidance restricting the supply of sildenafil (Viagra) on the NHS was deemed illegal. NICE was created to make evidence-based judgements about the cost effectiveness and suitability of drug treatments on the NHS. Despite some political interference, it has largely prevented politicians getting involved in deciding which drugs the NHS will supply. However, even NICE can have problems with politicians:

Many members of parliament are ready to espouse popular causes such as supporting patients with cancer or crippling diseases. Tabling questions in parliament is an effective way to do this. The House of Commons question book lists 84 questions on trastuzumab, 56 on donepezil, and 188 on interferon beta, but only two on ciprofloxacin, and none on penicillin or prednisolone.

Politicians are susceptable to lobby groups, such as patient groups who can be overly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. They are open to emotive Daily Mail campaigns. They are influenced by anecdote, and perhaps understandably open to persuasion by their constituents. In short, they are not best placed to make long-term decisions based on the best available information.

The same pressures can exist in vaccination policy. The leading anti-vaccine pressure group, JABS, routinely uses the media to push discredited pseudo scientific views on vaccines - such as the hoax hypothesis that MMR vaccine causes autism. They can also provide emotive cases for journalists.

Ahh, you might say, but no-one would take these people seriously? Well, they might. We were fortunate that the UK government did not cave into political pressure on the issue of MMR vaccine in the early 2000s. At the height of the MMR vaccine scare, it was far from clear that it was in the short-term self-interest of the Labour government to comply with scientific advice. Allowing the supply of single vaccines on the NHS, as requested by Wakefield, would have been less effective and sent a terrible message to the anti-vaccine movement (vindication and permission to move on to criticising single vaccines) and parents (admission of a danger when none existed). In the long term, caving in to such pressures would obviously have made the government look extremely foolish, but at the time newspapers were full of material about the so-called risk.

And there were politicians of both the left and right who did cave in. Liam Fox, himself a doctor, would have. So would Ken Livingstone. Placing vaccination policy outside of the hands of politicians is a welcome step.

JABS are not pleased with this new development.

Pressure group Jabs, a support group for families who believe their children have been damaged by vaccines, said the change was “undemocratic”, expressing concern that a body which was “answerable to no-one” would have the final authority.

Campaign founder Jackie Fletcher said: “The committee is a voluntary advisory body made up of medical professionals which includes members with potential conflicts of interest, because of direct and indirect links with vaccine manufacturers.”

She expressed fears that the move would allow the Government to go further in extending the national vaccination programme, or making its use compulsory, by using the excuse that it is only following the orders of its advisers.

Some brief comments about JABS concerns.

They are concerned that this is undemocratic and that the group is “answerable to no-one”. However, it is unlikely that we are heading into a technocracy. Parts 9 and 12 of the Code of Practice for the JCVI state:

9. The Secretaries of State are accountable to Parliament for the performance of the JCVI and for ensuring that it continues to observe the highest standards of propriety including impartiality, integrity and objectivity in the execution of its role and responsibilities.
[...]
12. Appointments to the JCVI are the prerogative of the Secretaries of State; they are normally of four years duration. Appointments may, however, be terminated, without compensation, in the event of unsatisfactory attendance at meetings or conduct which renders the member unfit to remain in office, or at the discretion of the Secretaries of State.

Are these aspects of the code changing.

Secondly JABS note the potential for conflicts of interest. As people with a vested interest in promoting vaccine safety scares, who have been involved in legal actions over alleged harms from vaccines, this criticism is perhaps attenuated somewhat. However, a risk of conflicts of interest does exist. However, the Code of Practice for the JCVI does note members need to follow the Nolan principles. Additionally, there is a balance to be made between the “purity” of the committee and the need to have experts on vaccines - who due to the very nature of products involved are likely to have some involved with manufacturers.

Thirdly, JABS suggest that this decision to take ministers out of the decision making process is just a scam for ministers to extend vaccination, or make it compulsory. This contradicts their first position, that it removes ministers from the process, but does neatly illustrate the conspiratorial nature of their organisation. That vaccination policy is even further away from their dangerous influence is extremely good news.