Seòmar agus comataidhean

That would be reasonable. We could point out that it appears from the petitioner’s submission that the UK Government has indicated that it has moved in that direction—or, if it has not moved in that direction, it has clarified that it is possible for that to happen in the rest of the UK—and, therefore, the Scottish Government might want to consider following suit. Does the committee agree to keep the petition open and move forward on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Our first new petition this morning, PE2028, has been lodged by Pinar Aksu on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network and Doaa Abuamer on behalf of the Voices Network. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the current concessionary travel scheme to include all people who are seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of their age.

We are joined in our consideration of PE2028 by our MSP colleagues Paul Sweeney and Mark Ruskell. Mr Sweeney is a veteran of our proceedings, of course, and I believe that Mr Ruskell has also been with us to consider petitions previously. I wish a very warm welcome to you both.

The petitioners highlight the challenging financial circumstances that asylum seekers face, and suggest that extending the concessionary bus travel scheme would support asylum seekers, as a group, becoming much more integrated in our communities.

As the SPICe briefing notes, people who seek asylum in the UK are usually ineligible for most welfare benefits. They have, to use the term that many of us are familiar with, “no recourse to public funds”. However, the Scottish national concessionary travel schemes are not listed by the UK Government as benefits that rely on public funds, which means that some asylum seekers can already benefit from free bus and coach travel.

Scottish Government officials estimate that around one third of people who are seeking asylum in Scotland are already eligible for concessionary bus travel under the existing schemes—that is, people who are under 22, are over 60 or are disabled. The Scottish Government response has also provided information about a pilot to provide travel support to asylum seekers in Glasgow, which ran from January to July this year.

We have also received a submission from the petitioners drawing our attention to pilots that have taken place in Aberdeen and Falkirk, and encouraging the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland to continue to engage constructively on the matter.

Before I ask colleagues how we might proceed in relation to PE2028, I invite both of our visiting colleagues to speak. Mr Ruskell, would you like to offer a contribution?

I think that this is an important petition that has quite a specific and deliverable ask. Do colleagues have any thoughts, having heard from Mr Ruskell and Mr Sweeney?

Our second new petition, PE2024, which was lodged by Cael Scott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a national public information programme to raise awareness of the impacts of using steroids, selective androgen receptor modulators, or SARMs, and other performance-enhancing drugs, or PEDs, which should include a particular focus on the impact on young people aged 16 to 25; to work with community learning and development practitioners, gyms and community coaches to raise awareness; and to develop a public health campaign to highlight the negative impacts of PEDs and encourage regular health check-ups for users, and a screening programme to allow users to test the safety of their PEDs.

Cael tells us that one of his friends was admitted to hospital with a life-threatening issue resulting from steroid use. Having seen many people at his gym use performance-enhancing drugs without any apparent impact, Cael’s friend had been unaware of the severity of the impact that they can cause. Cael notes that that was not an isolated incident and raises concerns about how easily available and widely promoted the drugs are, without information about negative impacts being provided.

The SPICe briefing sets out the distinction between anabolic steroids, which are class C drugs that can be prescribed by pharmacists for personal use, and selective androgen receptor modulators, which can be legally purchased in the UK without age restrictions. The latter are gaining popularity, partly due to heavy promotion on social media.

The Scottish Government’s response outlines the work that the Scottish Drugs Forum is doing to provide information and training on the matter. The response also states the Government’s commitment to developing its public health surveillance data to better understand drug trends and says that that work could be further enhanced to include the substances that the petition highlights. It refers to a multi-agency working group, whose work includes the development of a set of standards to support young people with their drug use.

We have received a further submission from the petitioner, which welcomes some of the activity set out by the Government but raises concerns that the current approach does not address the main harms that are associated with performance-enhancing drugs, namely hepatic, kidney and cardiovascular disorders.

The petitioner has drawn an important issue to the committee’s attention. What thoughts do members have on how we might approach it?

I think that that is fair. Are we content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes, we can do so. The only thing that it has said is that it has had those two submissions, which is not really action but just a reflection of that fact. Thank you for that. Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

The Government has come back twice to tell us that. However, we could draw to its attention why it is a matter of on-going concern.

Item 2 is to invite colleagues to agree to take items 5 and 6 in private. Are we content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to our second continued petition, and I gather that the petitioner is again with us in the public gallery. Good morning.

PE1911, lodged by Ann Stark, is on review of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 as it relates to post mortems. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the 2006 act and relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can be carried out only with permission of the next of kin;?do not routinely remove brains; and?offer tissues and samples to next of kin as a matter of course.

In our consideration of this petition, we are joined by our colleague Monica Lennon MSP. Good morning to you, too, Monica.

Members will recall our evidence-taking session in June with the Lord Advocate and Andy Shanks, Head of the Scottish fatalities investigation unit at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Since that meeting, we have received further information from the COPFS; its written submission states that the COPFS is working with pathology providers on a service redesign, and its preference is to have a national pathology and mortuary service established under national health service leadership. On the issue of CT scanning, the submission notes that representations have been made by two pathology providers on the viability of using scanning in post-mortem examinations, which?I think is progress on what we have understood to be the position before.

The petitioner, Ann Stark, has provided two written submissions, the first of which notes the upcoming service redesign and states that there is an opportunity to introduce the use of scanners in murder and suspicious cases. Ann also emphasises the importance of taking grieving families’ perspectives into account if a national service is to be established.

In her second submission, Ann Stark reiterates the importance of families having a choice about what happens with their loved ones and highlights the use of scanners in London to check for prostate cancer, which I think was in a very recent news story—in fact, they were talking about using magnetic resonance imaging for that.

In addition to the two submissions that are included in the papers, we have all received numerous e-mail communications directly from the petitioner about issues relating to her petition. I say to the petitioner that, although I fully understand her desire to ensure that we are fully informed, it is most helpful if submissions go to the clerks, because it causes confusion among members if we get them, as we are not sure of the operational process for dealing with them. I assure the petitioner that, if they go to the clerk, we will get them on a concise form, and that would assist us.

Before I open up to wider comment, given that Monica Lennon was with us when we heard our evidence from the Lord Advocate and from Andy Shanks, I wonder whether she would like to say something.

No—that was incredibly helpful.

In the letter that Fergus Ewing has suggested, it might be helpful to refer to the fact that the COPFS has said that it has received representations from two pathology providers. It might be interesting to ask for a bit more detail on that, because that does not tell us anything other than that it has received submissions. It would be useful to pull that together, as Fergus Ewing has suggested.

Do colleagues have any other suggestions over and above that?