Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much for that, Monica Lennon.

We have now assembled a considerable amount of evidence. Having had a chance to discuss these matters privately as well, the committee is of the view that we now need to write to the Scottish Government directly highlighting some of the matters that we have raised.

I wonder whether one of my colleagues would like to summarise, for the record, what areas we are proposing that that letter would cover.

Welcome to our world.

We have explored that issue with the Government.

PE2024, which has been lodged by Cael Scott, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a national public information programme to raise awareness of the impacts of the use of steroids, selective androgen receptor modulators and other performance-enhancing drugs. It makes the case that that programme should have a particular focus on the impact of such products on young people aged 16 to 25, and that work should be done with community learning and development practitioners, gyms and community coaches to raise awareness of the issue. It also asks that a public health campaign be developed to highlight the negative impacts of PEDs and to encourage regular health check-ups for users, and that a screening programme be developed to allow users to test the safety of their PEDs.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to UK Anti-Doping, Anabolic Steroids UK and the Scottish Drugs Forum, as well as the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has responded by providing the terms of reference for the early interventions for children and young people working group, which, it notes,

“will be guided every step of the way by the experiences of young people whose lives have been affected by alcohol and drug use and the front line services who support them.”

The response also lists the organisations that are members of the working group.

In its response, UK Anti-Doping draws our attention to its 2019 report on image and performance-enhancing drugs, which showed that the use of IPEDs extends beyond cheating in sport and is a significant public health issue. It is UK Anti-Doping’s view that structural arrangements to establish cross-agency working are needed in order to tackle the wider public health concerns that exist in relation to IPED use.

The Scottish Drugs Forum would welcome and actively support any national initiative that was focused on reducing the risks and harms associated with IPEDs. The forum suggests that a national campaign should be accompanied by the provision of adequate services, such as blood testing and other health checks, to reduce harms.

We have also received a response from the petitioner, in which they share their analysis of a series of freedom of information requests to regional health boards across Scotland on the costs and prevalence of, and existing support for, IPED use.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action, given the robust responses that we have received?

PE2027, which was lodged by Sarah Heward on behalf of the Tyndrum Infrastructure Group, calls on the Parliament to encourage the Scottish Government to launch without further delay the £10 million changing places toilet fund that was pledged in the 2021 SNP manifesto, and to make the application process clear, straightforward and expeditious for groups that are trying to build these much-needed facilities.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. The minister’s response to the committee highlights the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment

“to make the £10 million fund available across the financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26.”

The fund is due to open at “the beginning of 2025.”

In the light of the fact that the aim of the petition has, therefore, been realised, which is to make the funding available without delay, and a timetable has been set for that in early 2025, I am inclined to propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is now working to make the £10 million available for changing places toilets in the current session of Parliament, which is key.

In closing the petition, the committee could highlight to the petitioner that the fund will now open in 2025 and that, if they are not content with how the Government’s work progresses thereafter, we would be very pleased to receive a fresh petition at a later date in order to advance the aims. However, we have a firm commitment from the Government. On that basis, therefore, are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Choudhury, can I get confirmation from you on that? Mr Ewing has left us, but we need three heads to nod.

I shall not wander round the room asking for party contributions, but I thank Clare Haughey for advising the committee of that. We will seek confirmation from the Government, as that points seems directly to add to our consideration of the issues that are raised in the petition. I suppose that we could prompt that by writing to the Scottish Government in response to Diabetes Scotland’s “Diabetes Tech Can’t Wait” report, asking what specific funding would support the statement that the minister has made. Are colleagues content to do that? I again thank Clare Haughey for drawing that ministerial answer to our attention.

We will keep open the petition and act on that basis. I thank members and the petitioners for the work that has been done.

We thank the petitioner very much for raising the issue with us. In the light of the minister’s response, the committee feels that there is no immediate further course of action for us to take, as Mr Golden has summarised. However, I emphasise the point that it is perfectly possible, if the Government’s commitment has not been realised, for the petition to be brought back to us in 12 months’ time.

I hesitated slightly during my earlier comments, because I was struck by the fact that the Government’s submission states—I will repeat this—that recipients of the vaccines are given

“as much information on the potential side effects as possible”

and

“must give informed consent before receiving a vaccination.”

I recall that exactly those phrases were used in relation to the use of mesh in surgical procedures. I vividly remember being told that recipients were given as much information as possible and had given informed consent, but the evidence of many of the women in that circumstance was that that was simply not the case.

I would therefore like to ask the Government how it can assert with confidence that such practice is in place—it might be that it can do so, but I would like to understand how. The committee knows of previous examples in which a similar assurance was initially made but then was not seen to be properly validated by subsequent evidence.

The petition is important, given everything that we are now looking at. Admittedly, it is with the benefit of hindsight, but these issues are on-going in some instances. We will therefore keep the petition open and proceed with inquiries based on the suggestions that members have made. Are we content?

Members indicated agreement.