Seòmar agus comataidhean

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. PE1939, on amending the date of birth to allow wider accessibility to the human papillomavirus vaccination programme for boys, was lodged by Suzanne Thornton. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate a commitment to health equality for young males who were born between 1 September 1997 and 1 September 2006 by allowing them to access the HPV vaccination via the national health service.

The petitioner has told us that she is concerned that the current vaccine eligibility criteria are creating a health inequality. She has noted that all girls, as well as men who have sex with men aged up to 45 years, are offered HPV vaccination, but young males who were born prior to September 2006 are unable to access the vaccine. Should a young male who was born prior to that date wish to receive the HPV vaccine, he would have to do so through private healthcare, which the petitioner has advised us would cost approximately £500 per person.

The Scottish Government notes in its response that eligibility for teenage immunisation programmes in Scotland is defined by academic year rather than date of birth. As such, any boy who started in secondary 1 in 2019-20 would have been offered the vaccine and will remain eligible up to his 25th birthday. The response also notes that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation does not currently recommend a catch-up programme for boys and states that the evidence suggests that boys are already benefiting from indirect protection as a result of the roll-out of the vaccination programme to girls.

I know that the HPV vaccination has been controversial and that it has been the subject of previous discussion in the Public Petitions Committee in earlier parliamentary sessions.

Do members have any comments or suggestions in relation to the petition?

Thank you, Mr Stewart. If colleagues have no other suggestions on organisations to contact, is the committee content to keep the petition open and to pursue further evidence from those sources?

Members indicated agreement.

We move on with our consideration of continued petitions. PE1854, on reviewing the adult disability payment eligibility criteria for people with mobility needs, was lodged by Keith Park. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the 20m rule from the proposed adult disability payment eligibility criteria or to identify an alternative form of support for people with mobility needs.

When the committee last considered the petition, it agreed to ask the Scottish Government to engage with stakeholders on the review of the adult disability payment. The Scottish Government has now confirmed that engagement with relevant stakeholders will be included in the remit for both stages of the ADP review. We also have a further written submission from the petitioner, which calls on the committee to seek further evidence from stakeholders and to report directly to the review.

We are joined by our colleague Carol Mochan. Good morning, Carol, and thank you for your patience. Do you have anything to contribute to the committee’s thinking on the issue?

That would be very helpful. Mr Park lodged the petition on behalf of the MS Society. It would be interesting to drill down into the very specific complications arising from the condition itself.

PE1907, on the provision of funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds in Scotland, was lodged by Claire Beats. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds and remove the eligibility criteria for access to services.

The committee last considered the petition on 23 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government for further information, including on its plans to address concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on the development of children born during the pandemic.

We have received a response from the Scottish Government, in which it refers to its

“commitment to expand early learning and childcare to 1 and 2 year olds, starting in this Parliament with children from low income households.”

The response also states:

“the Scottish Government is funding a range of ... learning resources for ELC practitioners, which are directly relevant to supporting COVID-19 recovery”.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

That seems sensible, Mr Stewart. Does the committee agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1914, on banning school uniforms in secondary schools, was lodged by Matthew Lewis Simpson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for school uniforms in secondary schools.

The committee last considered the petition on 20 April. At that meeting, we agreed to keep the petition open while we wrote to the Scottish Government following the publication of its consultation on school uniforms. We also agreed to write to the Scottish Government to highlight the evidence that we had received and to seek further information on how children and young people have been involved in the consultation process.

We have now received two responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, which highlight the timing of the Scottish Government’s consultation on school uniforms—it ended on 14 October—and confirm that the consultation process would include bespoke engagement with children and young people. The cabinet secretary also suggested that the Scottish Government does not intend to take a uniform approach to uniforms and that local authorities and education authorities would also have a responsibility and determination in all of that.

Do members have any suggestions?

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue. The consultation has now been published and, as Mr Torrance has said, given the Scottish Government’s response, that is the limit that the committee can go to. Do colleagues agree that we should close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Stewart has suggested that it might be of interest for us to proactively visit communities that have been affected by the issue. Does that appeal to the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the last of this morning’s new petitions. PE1951, which was lodged by Alistair Bally Philp on behalf of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, is on reinstating an inshore coastal limit on the use of dredge and trawl fishing gears. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reintroduce a variation of the historical 3-mile coastal limit on the use of mobile dredge and bottom-trawling fish gears to support: the recovery of Scotland’s inshore demersal fin-fish population and the wider ecosystem; opportunities to optimise the social, economic and environmental returns within the new spatially managed area; and increases in the number of fishing jobs and the revitalisation of coastal communities.

The Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation highlights the decline in fish landings and the significant losses of marine features since the removal of the historical inshore limit. It is concerned that, despite the use of marine protected areas, less than 5 per cent of Scotland’s inshore waters are currently protected from damaging trawling and dredging activity. The federation has also shared information on economic studies, showing that switching fishing effort from trawl fishery to creel fishery has the potential to

“yield substantial economic, social and environmental benefits to Scotland”.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it has engaged in extensive discussions on the matter with the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation and has no plans to introduce a 3-mile limit to restrict mobile gear activity in inshore waters. The Scottish Government suggests that there are already a range of measures in place to protect fish stocks, and it highlights commitments contained in the Bute house agreement, including the designation of highly protected marine areas, which are to cover at least 10 per cent of Scotland’s inshore and offshore waters by 2026.

The petition has already attracted a large number of written submissions, many of which indicate concerns about the Scottish Government’s approach to marine management.

Given everything that we have received in advance of our consideration of the petition this morning, do members have any comments or suggestions? It appears that both Mr Stewart and Mr Torrance are keen to jump in.