Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

There any no other comments or suggestions from the committee.

We have the Scottish Government’s response. Could we slip in an extra question when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is next with the committee? As the topic is fresh in our minds, if the cabinet secretary is with us next week, we could do that, just to get an understanding of what the Government could do to accelerate access. It is a matter of considerable public concern. The cabinet secretary might prefer to wait until a later date, but let us see whether that is a possibility.

Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I highlight to those petitioners whose petition we have considered for the first time today that, as a matter of practice, in the first instance, we invite the Scottish Government to comment. Therefore, before we make recommendations, we have its response and any further submissions that have been received.

Thank you all for your new petitions. That brings us to the end of the public part of our meeting.

Thank you. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.

We have the cabinet secretary at our next meeting, where we will be able to pursue a number of the issues. Thank you, Karen, for your courage and resilience. It has been a privilege to have you with us this morning to discuss the issues. I know that I speak on behalf of all the committee when I wish you and your family every happiness in the future.