Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Strang, you referred to dozens of recommendations in the report. I am sorry that we are not here to do full justice to the report today. The work of the committee has been very much focused on the issues raised in the petition, despite Mr Sweeney’s heroic endeavours to draw out slightly wider evidence, which I am sure is also very useful to the committee. Is there anything that we have not touched on that either you or Carole Hunter would like to add?

I am happy for us to take that forward.

We are content to keep the petition open and proceed on the basis that has been set out. I thank the petitioner for the time that they took in speaking to us, as well as last week’s witnesses, who helped to inform our discussion.

PE1896, which has been lodged by Callum Isted, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the disposable water bottle that is provided with primary school lunches with a sustainable reusable metal bottle.

During our previous consideration of the petition, we were fortunate to hear from Callum personally—as members will recall, he was the youngest ever petitioner to present to the Scottish Parliament. We have to thank him not just for his evidence but for the fact that his petition was specifically cited in relation to the powering change award that the committee, as a mover and shaker of the year, subsequently received from Holyrood magazine.

Callum explained why reusable water bottles are important and told us about his campaign work, which included an impressive fundraising exercise. The committee agreed to write to the First Minister, whom Callum met, to ask what action she intends to take in order to fulfil the ask of the petition.

I regret to say that we have not received a response to our representations from the First Minister on the petition, and I understand that Callum is waiting for an update from the First Minister, too. I thank Callum again for his evidence and the time that he has taken over his petition. Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?

The Deputy First Minister, in identifying that the intention was to exclude arrangements where there was no exercise of public function, is compromised slightly when it is clear that it simply may not be possible to establish one way or another the reason for a child’s stay at Fornethy. In the light of what Mr Whittle says and the further evidence that we have received, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Do members agree to take that forward? We would invite the clerks to draft a response for us to consider along those lines based on the evidence that we have gathered from a number of sources on that point.

It would be unusual, but I will let Mr Whittle back in; you are not here to assist us in our deliberations but merely to lobby us as we consider them.

We will carry on the petition at our convenience.

PE1962, which was lodged by Lynn and Darren Redfern, is on stopping motorhomes parking overnight outwith formal campsites, caravan parks and aires. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve licensing enforcement on motorhomes to ensure that they park only in designated and regulated locations.

Lynn and Darren explain that motorhomes place an unnecessary burden on local communities when they park outwith formal spaces, with the disposal of rubbish, chemical toilets and dirty water. The Scottish Government has responded to the petition highlighting the rural tourism infrastructure fund, which has helped with the provision of facilities and with addressing issues of irresponsible waste disposal. It also highlights newly revised NatureScot guidance for land managers on off-road parking and positive awareness-raising work by the visitor management group.

The Scottish Government states that it believes that the current response to the increasing use of motorhomes is “sufficient”, and points to feedback that

“campervans have been managed better in 2022 than in previous years”.

Therefore, it does not believe that

“introducing a formal requirement to use specific sites”

would address

“the challenges outlined in the petition.”

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action on the petition?

That brings us to the end of the meeting. Thank you all very much. We will meet again on 7 December.

I wonder whether I can tease that point out a little more. Are you saying that pregnancy leads to a greater incidence of domestic abuse? What are the circumstances in which that would be promoted?

PE1950, on ensuring that immunosuppressed people in Scotland can access the Evusheld antibody treatment, was lodged by Alex Marshall. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to enable access, via the NHS, to Evusheld prophylactic treatment for people who have had a weak or zero response to Covid-19 vaccines.

In raising the petition, Alex highlights that lockdown and shielding has not ended for many people who are immunocompromised, such as those with blood cancer and organ transplants. He suggests that treatments such as Evusheld could offer protection to immunosuppressed people who have so far shown a weak or zero response to existing Covid-19 vaccines. Alex tells us that clinical trials have shown positive results and were found to reduce the risk of developing symptomatic Covid-19 by as much as 77 per cent. As a result, Evusheld was granted a conditional marketing authorisation by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

In response to the petition, the Scottish Government noted that Evusheld was developed and tested before the emergence of the omicron variant and that further testing is required to establish whether the treatment is effective against omicron variants. I note that omicron was identified some time ago. As such, there no established UK supply arrangement for Evusheld currently.

The Government states that it will closely monitor the outcome of further research and that it will write to update the committee in the event that there is a decision to make Evusheld available to patients in Scotland.

The committee has also received a submission from Blanche Hampton. She has shared her experience as an immunocompromised person who has had zero response to six vaccinations and who is now shielding again. Blanche has highlighted the fact that Evusheld is provided in other countries and that no negative effects have been reported.

Before I ask members for comments or suggestions, I see that we are again dependent on our old friends the MHRA, with which the committee has had dealings in the past. Those dealings have not always been terribly satisfactorily. Therefore, given that the conditional marketing authorisations were granted prior to the omicron variants and that no UK supply arrangement exists for Evusheld, I wonder whether, among any other recommendations that we might have, we should contact the MHRA to ask about the status of any evaluation that it might undertake. The omicron variants became apparent some time ago and I would have thought that there might be more urgency about assessing the implications of Evusheld.

As the submission from Blanche Hampton says, Evusheld is provided in other countries and no negative effects have been reported. I wonder whether we can establish any practice in relation to that and, if there is, we could draw that to the attention of the MHRA and the Scottish Government.

It has been reported in the media and elsewhere that people who are immunocompromised face a hugely debilitating sense of continuing exclusion and isolation, when the rest of the world has largely moved on. It seems unreasonable that we are not expediting every opportunity to make life more acceptable for them. Do committee members have any other suggestions or comments?