Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not sure whether I heard you, Mr Stewart. Did you include Blood Cancer UK, Immunodeficiency UK and Kidney Research UK as organisations that we might write to? Are you content that the committee approaches them?

PE1812, on protecting Scotland’s remaining ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors, was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, from whom we have previously heard, on behalf of the help trees help us campaign.

The petition called on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation giving Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection before the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—or COP26—in Glasgow in November 2021. Of course, that was the petition’s original aim but, even though we are now in the middle of COP27, the issue remains one of concern.

We last considered the petition on 4 May, when the committee indicated that it would like to visit some of the areas to explore the issues. As a result, on 21 September, we visited Pressmennan Wood in East Lothian, and I want to put on record our thanks to the Woodland Trust for hosting and looking after us that day.

At our last consideration of the petition, we also agreed to write to Scottish Forestry and all local authorities, seeking information on the operation and enforcement of tree preservation orders. We have now received responses from Scottish Forestry, 22 local authorities and the petitioners.

Throughout our consideration of the petition, we have heard that a number of issues are impacting on the effectiveness of current woodland strategies and policies and the protection of our ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors. We also heard evidence on possible areas for improvement, including prioritising the development of the inventory of ancient woodlands; strengthening the legislative framework and language in existing policies such as national planning framework 4; and taking steps to improve compliance and enforcement. We have also heard from the relevant minister in our consideration of those matters.

Having had a visit, and having heard from the petitioners, various representative organisations and the minister, I just wonder where, on the balance of all the evidence that we have received, members would be most comfortable going with regard to the petition.

I will let you respond in a moment, Dr Neal, but I should also say that a members’ bill is often the catalyst that leads to the Government adopting a proposal. It is difficult to quantify the success of members’ bill because, on quite a few occasions, the objective has been achieved because the bill has led to the Government understanding and adopting the issue rather than because the bill itself has passed into law.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. The first is PE1949, which was lodged by Alexander James Dickson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the rules regarding dual mandate MSPs and to legislate to bring those rules in line with the Senedd and Stormont by preventing MSPs from holding a dual mandate in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2026.

The petitioner has reminded us that, since the formation of the Scottish Parliament, MSPs have been allowed to take their place at Holyrood, while retaining a role or having a dual mandate in other local or national levels of Government. He notes that members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are not permitted to have a dual mandate and members of the Welsh Parliament have a grace period of eight days to resign if they also hold a seat as an MP. He also states that Welsh Parliament members who are peers would have to take a leave of absence from the House of Lords and that those who hold a role as a regional councillor can remain in post so long as the expected day of the next regional election is within 372 days.

As we do with all new petitions, the committee requested an initial view from the Scottish Government. In responding to the request, it stated:

“the Parliament is responsible for all matters relevant to its internal operation, including the terms for seeking its membership.”

Therefore, the issue is not a matter for the Scottish Government per se.

Are colleagues content for the committee to write to the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to inquire about the deliberative processes that led to the introduction of the legislation that prevents dual mandates in those legislatures, and to ask about any issues that they have encountered in the implementation of that legislation? Are members also content to write to the Electoral Reform Society to seek more information about the issues that have been raised by the petition?

Once we have considered those responses, we would be able to progress the petition to the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament that is charged with responsibility for those issues, given that the Scottish Government has said that it is not.

As there are no other suggestions, are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

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?

These issues will come out in response to questions from my colleagues, but—I am thinking back to our evidence-taking session with the petitioner—what is your experience of the degree to which this sort of violence goes unreported because victims of such violence, given the situation in which they find themselves, find it difficult to come forward and discuss it?

In a sense, therefore, whatever assurances were given and whatever conclusions were drawn when the petition was considered in the previous session of Parliament, the delivery and execution of any of that has fallen short or has not materialised, such that those issues need to be brought back to the centre of our attention. Is that essentially the reason for this petition?

How we approach mental health has moved on considerably in the lifetime of this Parliament. When I joined, 15 years ago, there was still a tremendous element of stigma around mental health, and a real reluctance even to discuss these issues. Two or three MSPs from different parties were champions of the way in which the Parliament embraced the need to approach mental health differently. There has been success in the sense that there is a greater willingness now for people to come forward or to talk about mental health issues. That has resulted in a far greater number of people trying to access services, so even as services are expanding, demand is increasing. As I think you have rightly articulated, it has been problematic that the pandemic resulted in a freeze on our ability to take forward a lot of the work that had been in progress.

I do not quite understand how all this operates in practice. In acute medicine, there is a difference between somebody who has suffered a heart attack and requires to be dealt with and somebody who is having elective surgery for a knee replacement. However, in the hierarchy of mental health, is there an assessment of the severity or nature of the mental health issues with which individuals present? Does someone who is in need of acute and immediate support find that, in essence, they are simply in a bus queue, without anyone necessarily understanding where the priorities lie in the way that might happen in traditional medicine?

You talked about some people presenting at A and E, which in your view is not the right place for them even though they were presenting with what we would call an emergency in mental health terms. Is it your argument that the ideal scenario would be to have somewhere else in hospital where people in that acute situation could present?