Chamber and committees

Our next continued petition, PE1911, was lodged by Ann Stark, who I think I can see with us in the gallery again. I say, “I think,” because I have a big spotlight shining in my face and it is difficult to see anybody down at that end of the room from here. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 and the relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can be carried out only with the permission of the next of kin; that brains are not routinely removed; and that tissues and samples are offered to the next of kin as a matter of course.

We are again joined by our colleague Monica Lennon, who has been with us before when we have considered the petition. Good morning and welcome, Monica.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Royal College of Pathologists and other relevant organisations. The response from COPFS to the committee confirms that recent discussions with pathology providers have included the benefits of and possible difficulties with the suggestion to use CT scanners as an alternative to invasive post-mortem examinations. The response also highlights the HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland’s annual report for 2022-23. The inspector’s view is that consideration of the delivery model for forensic pathology is required. The report notes the cross-sector nature of work in the area and therefore suggests that the Scottish Government should lead on it.

Both the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathologists have highlighted the existing clinical guidelines relating to the use of CT scans in post-mortem examinations. The Royal College of Radiologists states that there should in principle be no reason why CT scans could not be used during post-mortem examinations in Scotland, and that the guidance notes that, at the time of writing, the availability of expertise in imaging interpretation was limited to a small number of centres in the UK.

The Royal College of Pathologists notes that many types of deaths that can be diagnosed by post-mortem imaging in England would not require an autopsy in Scotland. The submission suggests that the impact of scanning on the overall autopsy rate in Scotland is likely to be much less than in England.

The petitioner has provided two written submissions, which reiterate the key ask of her petition. She also notes that a meeting recently took place between her and the Lord Advocate—I think that Monica Lennon may have been at that meeting, too—in which they discussed her individual case and the changes that she wishes to see.

The committee has uncovered a number of issues throughout its consideration of the petition. We have gathered a lot of written evidence from a number of key organisations and have taken oral evidence to inform our thinking of the issues, all of which have had us as passengers in support of the aims of the petition as it progresses the issue. Before I invite committee members to suggest where we might go next, I invite Monica Lennon to give a brief statement.

PE2086, which was lodged by William Queen, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge those injured by Covid-19 vaccines and to have the NHS offer them appropriate treatment.

The SPICe briefing explains that, when someone presents to a GP, their treatment is not necessarily based on or connected to the cause of the illness but based on alleviating the symptoms and, if possible, treating the underlying cause, if that can be identified. The briefing notes that injury caused by the Covid-19 vaccine is still a live area of research and that it is currently difficult to find comprehensive and reliable evidence and research that details and defines Covid-19 vaccine injury. I should also say that I do have constituents who are concerned about this issue.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition acknowledges that, on rare occasions, Covid-19 vaccines can cause injury and that it does not take concerns over the safety of vaccines lightly. The submission states 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.”

The petitioner has provided two written submissions, the first of which calls for the vaccine injured to be given time and a platform to speak about their experiences and asks for the Scottish Government to meet the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group. The second submission calls for more research into symptoms and illnesses that result from vaccination, improved diagnosis and treatment for mast cell activation syndrome, specialist clinics or multidisciplinary teams and financial support for private medical care where adequate treatment cannot be provided on the NHS.

In light of the responses that we have received, do colleagues have any clear idea about how we might proceed?

Yes.

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.