Official Report 653KB pdf
Dual Mandate MSPs (PE1949)
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.
Evusheld Antibody Treatment (PE1950)
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.
11:00In 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?
I suggest that we write to the UK Covid-19 therapeutics advisory panel, to seek information on the considerations that it has given to making Evusheld available as an antibody treatment to patients. We should also write to Blood Cancer UK and Kidney Research UK, to seek their views on the issues that have been raised by the petitioner. In addition, we should write to the Scottish Medicines Consortium to request the review of its decision to wait for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence report to provide access, via the NHS, to the Evusheld treatment for people who have zero or limited response to Covid-19 vaccinations. Finally, we should invite the petitioner and patient groups that campaign on the need for access to Evusheld to give evidence.
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?
Yes, absolutely.
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.
Patients with Autonomic Dysfunction (Specialist Services) (PE1952)
PE1952, on specialist services for patients with autonomic dysfunction, was lodged by Jane Clarke. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct Scotland’s NHS to form specialist services training resources and a clinical pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of patients exhibiting symptoms of autonomic nervous system dysfunction, or dysautonomia.
Jane tells us that autonomic nervous system disorders are common and that they are also often a complication of long Covid. She highlights the severe impact of the condition on people’s quality of life and life expectancy. Jane says that, in Scotland, there is no clinical pathway for dysautonomia, no specialist hub to diagnose and treat patients, and no access to local or regional healthcare for most patients. She highlights challenges and referrals to specialists in England, and lengthy treatment delays and the related impacts of that on individuals, including children.
In a further submission, Jane has provided additional information and comments on the Scottish Government’s response. According to Jane, a member of the NICE expert panel on long-term effects of Covid-19 has said that Scotland does not currently follow the relevant guidance in relation to multidisciplinary doctor-led services. Jane notes that a lack of data on the prevalence of such conditions in Scotland means that there is also no data on whether services are adequate.
The Scottish Government response states that there is expertise in Scotland to manage such conditions and that, where additional expertise is required, pathways are in place to allow patients to access services in England. It also states that the clinical guideline on identifying, addressing and managing the long-term effects of Covid-19 is supported by the Scottish Government’s implementation support note, which has been circulated to all NHS health boards.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
I suggest that we write to stakeholders, seeking their views on the actions asked for in the petition. The committee could write to the Brain Charity, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, PoTS UK, Professor Alan Carson and NHS National Services Scotland. We could also write to the petitioner, alerting them to the funding schemes that are available through the chief scientist office.
Thank you, Mr Stewart. As no colleagues have any other comments or suggestions, are we content to progress as Mr Stewart has suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.
Education Scotland (Staff Roles) (PE1953)
PE1953, on education support staff roles, was lodged by Roisin Taylor-Young. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review education support staff roles to consider: urgently raising wages for ESS across primary and secondary sectors to £26,000 per annum; increasing the hours of the working day for ESS from 27.5 to 35 hours; allowing ESS to work on personal learning plans with teachers and take part in multi-agency meetings; requiring ESS to register with the Scottish Social Services Council; and paying ESS staff monthly.
Roisin emphasises the importance of support staff, stating that they are absolutely essential to children’s education, support, care and wellbeing. She tells us that support staff are
“bitterly overworked and chronically underpaid”
and that there have been a number of equal pay claims for Scottish councils.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing states that classroom assistants are not required to have a professional registration currently. However, SPICe goes on to say that the Scottish Government is committed to exploring options for the development of an accredited qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistants in collaboration with trade unions and other key stakeholders. That will result in final proposals, which are due to be brought forward by autumn next year.
The Scottish Government highlights that a pupil support staff working group has been established to consider how pupil support staff can be empowered and supported. The group is currently engaged with and seeking the views of pupil support staff on its work.
Do members have any comments or suggestions on the petition? Mr Stewart, you are stepping forward again. Thank you.
I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask how it intends to engage with stakeholders in its delivery of the commitment to explore options for the development of an accredited qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistants, and how the petitioner can engage with the pupil support staff working group.
We could also write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, seeking a view on the issues that are raised in the petition and requesting information on the frequency and cost of equal pay claims that have been lodged in relation to education support staff roles. In addition, we could write to the Scottish Social Services Council, seeking a view on the issues that are raised in the petition and requesting information on the requirements for and processes of registration.
As there are no other suggestions, are members content to progress as recommended?
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.
11:10 Meeting continued in private until 11:12.Air ais
Continued Petitions