Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suspect that that would be a matter of some good fortune for ministers, Mr Ewing. [Laughter.]

It is great that young people are learning CPR because it seems that a skill, once learned, is a skill retained. At our previous meeting, I rather self-deprecatingly pointed out that those of us who are slightly older were actively trained in CPR here in the Parliament, but that that knowledge has perhaps ebbed with the passage of time. I do not know whether I am somebody of an age who should hope to be saved in the event that anything happens or whether I am still somebody who should actively be trained to save others. I know that there were some prompt notes. Steven Short said that I should be reassured that the training that I received is probably retained instinctively and that, with the prompt notes, I would find that I was able to participate again. However, can anything more be done to refresh skills in those who took the time to invest in training in CPR in the first place?

PE2028, lodged by Pinar Aksu on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network and Doaa Abuamer on behalf of the VOICES Network, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the current concessionary travel scheme to include all people seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of age.

Paul Sweeney, our MSP colleague, joins us for our consideration of the petition, as he has done previously. Good morning, Paul.

The committee last considered the petition in March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. We received a response from Transport Scotland, which states that the working group that is responsible for designing a pilot scheme to progress free bus travel for all asylum seekers has reconvened this year and was due to have its first meeting in May. It also indicates that officials are considering, and would discuss with the working group, whether it is possible to include people seeking asylum in the statutory national concessionary travel schemes in the longer term.

In August, in a response to a written question, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity said that it was

“anticipated that the pilot will commence in the Autumn.”—[Written Answers, 19 August 2025; S6W-39566.]

However, in an additional submission, the petitioners indicate that they are still waiting for the pilot to begin, and they continue to urge the Scottish Government to commit to a sustainable and long-term solution.

I recall that we raised the issue directly with Humza Yousaf, the then First Minister, at an earlier stage. The scheme was agreed and then disrupted. We were then told that the petition’s aims were once again being pursued, but although the will is supposedly there to make it happen, the matter seems to be going on for a little bit longer than we were told. Before the committee considers what further it might do, I invite Mr Sweeney to comment.

To follow up on the point about Kym Kestell’s evidence, she said that there are potentially thousands of defibrillators that we do not really know about, as they are not registered, and that that provision could be mapped and logged. What can we do to encourage that process to take place?

How did that lack of clarity come about, and how did the situation evolve to the point where you felt that further work was needed to clarify it?

Thank you for that. If you are seeking to encourage me to attend events where exercise is involved, you will have the whole-hearted support of Mrs Carlaw, even if I am slightly more reluctant.

Did Police Scotland act without giving due thought at the time to disquiet that might be a consequence of the statement that came out in 2019? What was the motivation at that point?

In so far as officers are confident in how they proceed, is it now the case that the same criteria are applied in relation to the policy for all sexual offences and that there is no distinction in that regard?

We face the fact that the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service want to do nothing further. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has made it perfectly clear that the Scottish Government does not intend to do anything further. At the same time, the committee is of the view that the issues that the petition raises are more important than the dusty response that we have received implies.

As the responses that we received came before the roundtable discussion that took place, and as there appears to be wider cross-party support and understanding of the failures on the issue, I suggest that we write to the cabinet secretary to say that we would like her to consider the matter further, given that there is considerable disquiet for the reasons that Mr Marra has articulated. As Mr Ewing has said, it seems extraordinary that there have been no inquiries in Scotland when, irrespective of the system being different, the authorities in England and Wales have been able to progress inquiries in the face of the exact same challenges that any inquiry led in Scotland would face.

I am perfectly content for the committee to write to the chief constable, saying that it is an issue with which it would be helpful for Police Scotland to engage—my mother would correct me on my grammar if I got that the wrong way round. We can ask whether the Government would be prepared to meet Mr Marra and the petitioner with a view to progressing the matter. Are there any other suggestions from the committee?

PE2087, lodged by Paul Irvine, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pass a law making exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence punishable by an on-the-spot fine for infringement.

We last considered the petition on 19 March, when we agreed to write to all local authorities in Scotland. The committee received responses from 13 local authorities, 11 of which have cemetery management rules in place for dogs. The rules that are in place either exclude non-assistance dogs or require them to be on a leash or kept under control. A number of local authorities noted that signage is in place to explain the rules and that, in some cases, additional signage has been placed in cemeteries where dog activity has proved to be a concern.

Where the number of complaints was provided, the instances were low. However, other responses noted that non-compliance with cemetery rules does take place and that enforcement can be challenging.

Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?