Seòmar agus comataidhean

The next petition is PE2067, which was lodged by Sharon Duncan and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission research to establish how many people aged 14 to 35 are affected by conditions that cause young sudden cardiac death, to clarify the number of people in Scotland who die annually from these conditions and to set up a pilot study to establish if voluntary screening can reduce deaths.

Is that Sharon Duncan in the public gallery? My eyesight is so faulty these days, but I believe that she is in the gallery—a very good morning to you.

We had hoped to be joined by Oliver Mundell for our consideration of this petition but, unfortunately, he is unwell and has not been able to attend the Parliament this week. He has sent his apologies.

We last considered this petition at our meeting on 20 March 2024, when we agreed to write to a number of organisations with a view to better understanding what research may be under way and to invite views on the call for a pilot study for a voluntary screening programme. Copies of all the responses that we have received are included in our papers for today’s meeting.

The response from Cardiac Risk in the Young—CRY—provides details on calculating and understanding the incidence of conditions associated with young sudden cardiac death. It suggests that there are inaccuracies in the way that the incidence is recorded by the Office for National Statistics, which has led to the UK and Scottish Governments underestimating the impact that those conditions have on families and society at large. That is clearly disturbing.

Similarly, the British Heart Foundation and Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland both highlighted the importance of research for improving understanding of the prevalence of sudden cardiac death and how best to identify the risks associated with it. Both organisations indicated support for further research, with Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland believing that, if the Scottish Government commissioned research, including a pilot study on voluntary screening, it could provide crucial insight and offer a valuable contribution to the current evidence base.

We also received a response from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health setting out how the Scottish Government and other UK nations engage with the work of the UK National Screening Committee. It noted that Governments cannot tell the NSC which issues it should consider or review.

In its response dated May 2024, the UK National Screening Committee states that it is not aware of any significant new work on whole population screening that would suggest a different outcome to its 2019 review. It does, however, plan to review evidence relating to population screening for sudden cardiac death within the next three years. The response also notes that the NSC’s terms of reference have been expanded to include consideration of targeted or stratified screening programmes, and although it has not yet been asked to consider targeted or stratified screening for sudden cardiac death, it can be alerted to any new published peer-reviewed evidence that might suggest a case for a new screening programme.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner. She welcomes the responses from Cardiac Risk in the Young, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland and the British Heart Foundation, and also draws our attention to discussions that have taken place elsewhere in the UK, including an event at the Italian embassy in London that explored the mandatory screening programme for young people who are involved in organised sport in Italy, and how that programme might be adapted for use in the UK. Ms Duncan also shared information about the meeting that she had with the then First Minister, Humza Yousaf, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to discuss the possibility of commissioning or supporting research into the impact of diseases leading to sudden cardiac death in Scotland.

Quite a bit of progress has been made, but there is still work to do. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Our next continued petition PE2086, which was lodged by William Queen and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge those who were injured by Covid-19 vaccines and to have the national health service offer appropriate treatment to them.

We last considered the petition on 29 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek information on informed consent, specialist diagnostic testing and specialist treatment.

The Scottish Government’s response states that information on the potential side effects of the Covid-19 vaccine is provided with each appointment letter, which also includes links to further detailed information. The submission also highlights that staff at clinics are trained to answer any questions about side effects and that each patient must give informed consent before receiving a vaccination. That has been my personal experience.

The Scottish Government’s submission states that no specialist diagnostic testing is available for Covid-19 vaccine-related harms, but there are other diagnosis methods. For example, if a patient has a condition that is a known side effect, further tests or clinical assessment could be done in order to rule other likely causes in or out, although there might be nothing that is definitive enough to confirm the condition’s cause. The submission reiterates that an individual would be offered the same treatment as any other patient, regardless of how they contracted a condition.

The petitioner’s written submission highlights concerns that patients are not being adequately treated for the conditions that they are presenting with, which is resulting in some individuals seeking private treatment. He points to vaccine-induced myocarditis as a condition that can be difficult to diagnose. He also states that he is aware that people have been described as over-anxious when seeking support through the NHS, which is leading them to be hesitant about continuing to seek support, while others have pursued private care and received a heart injury diagnosis.

I believe that the petitioner is in the gallery—good morning and welcome. There continues to be issues of substance in this area, so it is a petition that we would want to hold open. Do members have any calls or suggestions for action?

We thank the petitioner for his on-going work to underpin the petition that he submitted. We will seek specific evidence on the particular points that have been identified in his most recent submission.

The first new petition is PE2130, which has been lodged by James A Mackie. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a ban on the removal of all hair from a horse’s tail, leaving a bare stump, other than for medical reasons.

As Mr Mackie notes in the background information that he provided, the tail is a vital part of a horse’s anatomy that serves several functions. The tail assists in temperature regulation, is a mechanism for balance by subtly influencing the alignment of the horse’s hind, deters pests and is a vital communication centre for relaying messages about the horse’s mood, health, energy and locomotion.

The SPICe briefing notes that horses are protected animals under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which includes general offences such as causing a protected animal unnecessary suffering and carrying out a prohibited procedure on an animal. The act permits the Scottish ministers to make codes of practice for protecting animals, and the “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equidae” was published in 2009. I note that the code does not include anything specific on tail hair removal.

The petitioner and others, such as Animal Concern, suggest that there are alternatives to removing tail hair, such as braiding or bandaging, which keep the hair out of harm’s way and can be undone easily, allowing the tail to function naturally.

In response to the petition, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity states that the Scottish Government does not support or recommend the complete removal of a horse’s tail hair. However, the Government is of the view that a ban on the removal of hair from horse tails would be an unnecessary and disproportionate response. Instead, it suggests that the issue should be addressed in updated equine guidance, and it notes that new guidance is currently being developed.

We have received a submission from Mr Mackie in which he responds to the minister’s comments. He notes that, as guidelines are not enforceable, legislation is required. The submission includes quotes from a House of Lords debate that took place in 1938 ahead of the introduction of the tail docking and nicking ban, and Mr Mackie suggests that the arguments that were made in that debate are just as relevant today.

The Scottish Government has given a view on its likely course of action, and I doubt that there is much time left for primary legislation in the current parliamentary session. What are colleagues inclined to suggest?

There is a rush of enthusiasm to identify how we might proceed. Do you have any views, Mr Ewing?

I think that those remarks were very nicely rounded and put. I am not sure that the petition’s specific aim is something that we can deliver, but we could pursue the underlying issues that it raises in the way that has been suggested this morning. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Mr Sweeney for assisting us in coming to that determination. We will keep the petition open—the petitioners in the gallery can be assured of that—and we will seek the information that has been requested, as suggested.

Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. That was a helpful exposition of some of the issues underpinning the petition.

Having heard from Mr Sweeney, do colleagues have any suggestions as to what we might do?

We will keep the petition open and proceed on the basis that has been suggested.

To those of you who have been enjoying the proceedings so much, I am afraid to say that that brings us to the conclusion of our meeting. Our next meeting will take place on 19 March. I thank everyone for their participation and for joining us today, and I formally close the meeting.

I suspect that Police Scotland will not comment on an individual case, but we could write to the Lord Advocate or the minister to try to establish some detail and say that we have noted the wider point about the onus of responsibility being on the individual, but the circumstances of this particular case are not entirely clear to us, so we are drawing it to the minister’s attention to see whether they can give us some further assurance. Would that meet the committee’s approval?

Members indicated agreement.

We will do that.