Standing Committee on Pandemic Preparedness minutes: April 2024

Attendees and apologies

• Professor Andrew Morris
• Professor Linda Bauld
• Professor Tom Evans
• Professor Dame Anna Dominiczak
• Dr Audrey MacDougall
• Dr Jim McMenamin
• Professor Josephine Pravinkumar
• Professor Stephen Reicher
• Professor Sir Aziz Sheikh
• Professor Nicola Steedman
• Professor Nicholas Phin
• Professor Mathew Williams
• Professor Mark Woolhouse

Observers

• Daniel Kleinberg
• Christine McLaughlin 

Secretariat

• Redacted S.38 (1)(b)
• Redacted S.38 (1)(b)
• Redacted S.38 (1)(b)
   

Items and actions

1.    Welcome & Introduction 

The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting and noted apologies. 

The Chair thanked those who provided input into the SCoPP report first draft. Committee members were invited to provide their comments on this during the meeting and in correspondence. A key part of the final report will be the articulation of the specific value-add that a Centre of Pandemic Preparedness (CPP).

The Chair recognised the contribution of all Committee members to the UK Covid-19 inquiries and thanked members for this. 

The Chair noted he had attended a recent lecture on lessons from AIDS and COVID-19 by Anthony Fauci M.D., former U.S. Chief Medical Advisor. He shared his key takeaways from this, including: 

• the need to expect the unexpected
• the role of current scientific advances as the solutions to future pandemics
• the risks from misinformation and disinformation
• the need for increased attention of the animal-human interface
• the role of pandemics in exacerbating inequalities
• the importance of community public engagement, especially with groups which governments have more difficulty reaching

The only way to deal with perpetual challenge is perpetual preparedness. 

Committee members congratulated the Chair on being named as President of the Academy of Medical Sciences. 

ACTION – The Chair to circulate a link to the Anthony Fauci lecture.  

2.     Scottish Government Update

Daniel Kleinberg provided an update on ongoing work on pandemic preparedness and risk management for pandemics in Scotland, including work which considers some of the early lessons that are emerging from the Covid-19 inquiries. 
The group was given an overview of the location of different parts of work and links between Scottish Government and UK Government work in this area. Daniel Kleinberg anticipated that Cabinet would discuss some of these considerations in May or June.

Group members emphasised the importance of ensuring there is a clear understanding of the locus of different parts of work on pandemic preparedness and response, and avoiding duplication. Collaboration and co-production are key, along with understanding that different components of pandemic preparedness and response may be best situated at UK, Four Nations, or Scottish level. The focus is understandably on pandemics, but this should not mean that risks from emerging infectious diseases are overlooked as there will be opportunities to improve planning around these as well. It was noted that the ratio of spend to potential saving is extremely high.

 

3.     Discussion of Draft Final Report

The Committee considered the first draft of the final report and were given an overview of the main pieces of work which fed into this. Among these are papers setting out governance proposals for a CPP and a paper articulating details of the potential research functions of a CPP.

The Committee were invited to provide verbal comments today and written comments in correspondence within the next two weeks. The aim will then be for a second draft to be produced for discussion in late May. 

Proposals described a CPP serving as a network to support the research community to maintain collaborative arrangements and relationships which were put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic. Among the recommendations of the interim report, the was need for these partnerships between the Scottish Government, Public Health Scotland, and Academia to be in place ahead of future pandemics, and the importance of keeping these networks warm and enabling the rapid re-activation of these in the future was underlined. The Committee agreed that proposals in the final report should articulate a single, coherent offering that is clear on the function, structure, governance, and purpose of a CPP.

The concept of the CPP as a network and boundary organisation was discussed, as there is potential to go beyond this and consider the capabilities that such a Centre could deliver for Scotland. This was articulated in the context of the 100 Days Mission, with the research and analysis functions of a Centre at the heart of addressing challenges of the first 100 days of a pandemic, and working with UK and international partners for this. The CPP would serve as the link between policy and the institutions that would deliver these initiatives. The Centre of Expertise on Animal Disease Outbreaks (EPIC) model was referenced as an example, and this was also cited in the Committee’s interim report. 

The Committee noted the current financial pressures in the public sector, and considered the need to articulate clearly the value-add that such a Centre would bring to preparedness in Scotland, alongside the risks and associated costs of not developing these capabilities. Learnings from Covid-19 can be built-on, and there are examples of positive legacies of the Covid-19 pandemic, such as the development of whole-genome sequencing in Scotland. There could be a role for the CPP to support the Scottish Government and PHS to identifying gaps in capabilities and help ensure arrangements are in place for use in future responses. Committee members were reminded of the point made by member of the International Reference Group, which noted the importance of also ensuring local-levels arrangements and mechanisms are in place for future pandemics. 

On data, Committee members noted that there remains work to be done to deliver the necessary improvements in Scotland and commented that there is a perceived lack of appetite for these changes in Scotland compared to other parts of the UK, particularly on data platforms. 

The Committee noted that sections on horizon scanning and innovation need to be developed further, again drawing on existing pathways and how these can be adapted for pandemic preparedness and response where relevant, to avoid creating duplication and parallel systems. The final report will partly serve to outline, for each of the four recommendations of the interim report, where progress has been made and what work remains to be undertaken. As the scope of the report is specific, it would also be helpful to state upfront in the final report what it is not addressing. The way the pandemic is represented in culture will play a role in shaping our collective memory of this time and our response to the next pandemic. Committee members noted that this cultural element, whilst not in the scope of this Committee should not be overlooked. 

The Chair thanked group members for their contributions and summarised the discussion:

• the final report should be one coherent document, which articulates the value- add of the CPP and its role as an interface between government, agency and academia
• the 100 Days model is helpful to draw upon for this
• the governance of a the CPP should be articulated simply
• recommendations on data will need to be more specific, and note progress in other parts of the UK. In England, there have been very collaborative developments across public health policy and the academic community
• behavioural science remains a key theme across each area of recommendations, and the report should be clear to articulate the benefits of proposals during periods between outbreaks and acute events
• the Committee should consider economic arguments for this work, though specific funding questions remain for the Scottish Government to consider upon receipt of the final report
• key to each of the recommendations is the aim to build and improve on what is already in place, avoiding duplication and encouraging collaboration

Committee members suggested the report should be externally peer-reviewed prior to its publication. The Chair supported this proposal. 

ACTION – Committee members to share comments in the next two weeks, with the next draft to be circulated ahead of the next meeting of the Committee in late May. 

 

4.    Any other business

The next meeting is expected to take place in about a month.  The Chair thanked all members for their contributions.