Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2086, which was lodged by William Queen, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge those injured by Covid-19 vaccines and to have the NHS offer them appropriate treatment.

The SPICe briefing explains that, when someone presents to a GP, their treatment is not necessarily based on or connected to the cause of the illness but based on alleviating the symptoms and, if possible, treating the underlying cause, if that can be identified. The briefing notes that injury caused by the Covid-19 vaccine is still a live area of research and that it is currently difficult to find comprehensive and reliable evidence and research that details and defines Covid-19 vaccine injury. I should also say that I do have constituents who are concerned about this issue.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition acknowledges that, on rare occasions, Covid-19 vaccines can cause injury and that it does not take concerns over the safety of vaccines lightly. The submission states that recipients of the vaccines are given

“as much information on the potential side effects as possible”

and

“must give informed consent before receiving a vaccination.”

The petitioner has provided two written submissions, the first of which calls for the vaccine injured to be given time and a platform to speak about their experiences and asks for the Scottish Government to meet the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group. The second submission calls for more research into symptoms and illnesses that result from vaccination, improved diagnosis and treatment for mast cell activation syndrome, specialist clinics or multidisciplinary teams and financial support for private medical care where adequate treatment cannot be provided on the NHS.

In light of the responses that we have received, do colleagues have any clear idea about how we might proceed?

Yes.

Thank you very much for that, Monica Lennon.

We have now assembled a considerable amount of evidence. Having had a chance to discuss these matters privately as well, the committee is of the view that we now need to write to the Scottish Government directly highlighting some of the matters that we have raised.

I wonder whether one of my colleagues would like to summarise, for the record, what areas we are proposing that that letter would cover.

Welcome to our world.

We have explored that issue with the Government.

PE2024, which has been lodged by Cael Scott, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a national public information programme to raise awareness of the impacts of the use of steroids, selective androgen receptor modulators and other performance-enhancing drugs. It makes the case that that programme should have a particular focus on the impact of such products on young people aged 16 to 25, and that work should be done with community learning and development practitioners, gyms and community coaches to raise awareness of the issue. It also asks that a public health campaign be developed to highlight the negative impacts of PEDs and to encourage regular health check-ups for users, and that a screening programme be developed to allow users to test the safety of their PEDs.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to UK Anti-Doping, Anabolic Steroids UK and the Scottish Drugs Forum, as well as the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has responded by providing the terms of reference for the early interventions for children and young people working group, which, it notes,

“will be guided every step of the way by the experiences of young people whose lives have been affected by alcohol and drug use and the front line services who support them.”

The response also lists the organisations that are members of the working group.

In its response, UK Anti-Doping draws our attention to its 2019 report on image and performance-enhancing drugs, which showed that the use of IPEDs extends beyond cheating in sport and is a significant public health issue. It is UK Anti-Doping’s view that structural arrangements to establish cross-agency working are needed in order to tackle the wider public health concerns that exist in relation to IPED use.

The Scottish Drugs Forum would welcome and actively support any national initiative that was focused on reducing the risks and harms associated with IPEDs. The forum suggests that a national campaign should be accompanied by the provision of adequate services, such as blood testing and other health checks, to reduce harms.

We have also received a response from the petitioner, in which they share their analysis of a series of freedom of information requests to regional health boards across Scotland on the costs and prevalence of, and existing support for, IPED use.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action, given the robust responses that we have received?

PE2027, which was lodged by Sarah Heward on behalf of the Tyndrum Infrastructure Group, calls on the Parliament to encourage the Scottish Government to launch without further delay the £10 million changing places toilet fund that was pledged in the 2021 SNP manifesto, and to make the application process clear, straightforward and expeditious for groups that are trying to build these much-needed facilities.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. The minister’s response to the committee highlights the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment

“to make the £10 million fund available across the financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26.”

The fund is due to open at “the beginning of 2025.”

In the light of the fact that the aim of the petition has, therefore, been realised, which is to make the funding available without delay, and a timetable has been set for that in early 2025, I am inclined to propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is now working to make the £10 million available for changing places toilets in the current session of Parliament, which is key.

In closing the petition, the committee could highlight to the petitioner that the fund will now open in 2025 and that, if they are not content with how the Government’s work progresses thereafter, we would be very pleased to receive a fresh petition at a later date in order to advance the aims. However, we have a firm commitment from the Government. On that basis, therefore, are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Choudhury, can I get confirmation from you on that? Mr Ewing has left us, but we need three heads to nod.

Welcome back. We move to item 3, which is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those petitions, PE1905, lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UK XJW’s Support, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sex abuse since 1950.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023. We asked the then Deputy First Minister about work arising from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales, and about how the implementation of national child protection guidance is monitored in the context of religious settings. We received a response in November 2023 that highlights that child protection committees were asked to return a self-evaluation by the end of October that year. The Scottish Government was then due to work with the Centre for Excellence for Children’s Care and Protection—CELCIS—to analyse those returns, and a report was due at the start of 2024 to summarise the national implementation progress.

The then Deputy First Minister highlighted that, under the guidance, faith organisations should have designated child protection leads who have a role in passing on concerns about children to police or social work, and in developing and maintaining organisational policies and procedures. Government officials presented to faith and belief representatives group in 2022 to raise the profile of the guidance.

In response to the report in England and Wales, the Scottish Government has worked with stakeholders to gather views and consider the potential risks and merits of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in a Scottish context. The petitioner’s submission emphasises the challenges that are associated with engaging certain religious groups in that work. She states that her experience suggests that not all religious groups will engage with advisory groups or committees. She argues that that is why it is important to legally require religious leaders to report allegations of abuse to the authorities.

Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed? It seems as though we have been going round the houses and the Government’s view is fairly clear. It seems that, irrespective of the views that the committee has expressed or supported, it is not minded to proceed in that way.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. Do members agree with that?