Chamber and committees

PE1950, which is 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 via the national health service to make that treatment available for people who have a zero or weak response to Covid-19 vaccines.

Members will recall that we are considering this petition now having heard evidence remotely on 8 February from Mark Oakley and Nikola Brigden, who are members of the Evusheld for the UK campaign group. Their view at the time was that, although it might not be a magic bullet, it can support immunosuppressed individuals to have more confidence when undertaking activities such as spending time with family and friends or using public transport.

I think that, as much as anything, the evidence session identified to the committee that, although the world has moved on from the Covid pandemic, there are still a number of people in our society whose everyday life is seriously compromised by it. Having just come back from a few days in London, I am very struck that you would not know that there had ever been a pandemic, in the sense that life has moved back to what it was. I think that everybody just assumes that that is the case for everyone, when, in fact, our evidence demonstrated that, for some people, it is still a very live concern.

Members might be aware that, since our previous consideration, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has issued draft guidance, which does not recommend Evusheld for preventing Covid-19 in adults who are unlikely to have an adequate immune response to the Covid-19 vaccination or who cannot be vaccinated. As part of that announcement, NICE indicated that it is developing a new review process to update recommendations on the cost effectiveness of Covid-19 treatments so that they can be made available much more quickly to patients.

It was obviously the case that, by the time we first considered the petition, the national situation had advanced considerably from the position that had been achieved by the point that the petition was lodged, and, if Evusheld had been effective, it would have been a heck of a long lead time before it would have been made available. Therefore, the review of the way in which NICE will progress treatments is very much to be welcomed. Do members have any questions or comments?

Are colleagues content to close the petition, given the Scottish Government’s advice and the limitations on the powers of the Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. However, as the petitioner will understand, it appears that there is no route open to the committee to take forward the petition’s aims.

Laura Pasternak from Who Cares? Scotland, would you like to contribute anything at this opening point?

That is interesting.

I thank you both—we very much appreciate your contribution to the discussion this morning. I suspend the meeting briefly in order that we can invite others to join us.

10:15 On resuming—  

I see that there are 13,255 children and young people who are looked after by local authorities. In 2020-21, 534 young people were recorded as entering continuing care, with 7,323 young people being eligible for aftercare. I want to be clear about this. In Jasmin’s experience, where advocacy was available and in place, she regarded the support package that she received as being superb.

There is obviously an appreciation of what the support should be. In Jasmin’s case, that happened. Is it that the resource is not there for everyone to experience the outcome that Jasmin did, or is it that there is, as you have both identified, a lack of understanding and availability of advocacy and a pathway to access the service? If that is the case, I would distil my question down to this: who needs to do what?

So who needs to do what? To whom would you like to say, “You need to change this, so that this happens.”?

Although ministerial appointments follow this corporate body session, I am not living in hope. However, I thank Mr Bibby for the attribution. [Laughter.]

It is open to MSP staff to speak with the representatives on the corporate body from any given party in order to allow our deliberations to be informed.

Although it would not be appropriate for the corporate body to meet with trade unions that represent MSP staff, Mr Bibby is correct, in that I understand that the chief executive has indicated his willingness to do so in advance of the corporate body submitting its budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Although he has indicated his willingness to do so in order to be informed of the views of the representatives of MSP staff, the corporate body is clear that that is not the equivalent of entering into a formal negotiation.

As a faithful attendee of these corporate body sessions, I am sure that Mr Bibby will recall the substance of the answer that I gave to Pam Duncan-Glancy when she asked that question in November last year. To summarise, there is no employment relationship between the corporate body and the MSP staff; it would not, therefore, be appropriate for the SPCB to meet with the GMB in its capacity as the representative of staff who are employed by MSPs.

The corporate body’s role is to apply appropriate indices to ensure that provisions that relate to staff costs, which are contained in the members’ expenses scheme, are uprated annually. Thereafter, it is a matter for MSPs, as individual employers, to determine the salaries for their staff.