³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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?

We want the most comprehensive letter at this stage—

We have the two approaches. Mr Torrance, are you content? What is your view?

Instead of considering PE1973, I will jump ahead on the agenda, because we now have Rhoda Grant with us, and I am happy to try to facilitate Rhoda’s morning by bringing forward the petitions in which she has an interest.

Both petitions have been lodged by Derek Noble. PE1974 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A890 as a trunk road and to resolve the safety problems that are associated with the Stromeferry bypass. PE1980 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A832 between Achnasheen and Gorstan as a trunk road, connecting that route into the existing trunk road network. We considered the petitions on 18 January, when we agreed to write to a range of stakeholders to seek further information on the issues raised.

As I said a moment ago, we are joined by our colleague Rhoda Grant—good morning, and welcome, Rhoda. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from Lochcarron community council and the Plockton and district community council, which highlight the disruption that residents and others face when rock falls cause a closure of the A890, as well as their support for action to recognise the increased volume of traffic on the route and improve the quality of the road surface.

We also received a response in February from the then Minister for Transport, which suggests that, although there is linkage between the criteria set out in the strategic transport projects review and the A890, it is the Government’s assessment that the A890 does not sufficiently meet the criteria to be incorporated into the motorway and trunk road network. The minister also suggests that transferring the route to the trunk road network would not solve the investment challenges that are associated with addressing road safety and maintenance issues on this stretch of road.

On a related point, the VisitScotland response states that it considers road infrastructure to be an important part of the visitor experience but that it would be for the Scottish Government to consider whether adopting the A832 as a trunk road would improve outcomes for residents and visitors to the area.

The response from Highland Council notes that it has done no further work on the Stromeferry options appraisal since December 2019, given that the project has no capital programme support and no preferred option has been identified. The council’s response also states that, although parts of the A832 may not meet today’s design standards, the issues of the A890 Stromeferry section outweigh those issues significantly.

There is a range of responses, and they are not altogether encouraging from the point of view of the petition, unfortunately. Before I ask the committee to reflect on what we have heard, I invite Rhoda Grant to make any comments that she feels would be appropriate.

As there are no further suggestions, are committee members content with those recommended actions?

Members indicated agreement.

Therefore, the petition will remain open and we will again endeavour to understand the thinking of the various organisations to whom we will now write, in the first instance.

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

The petitioner would, of course, have the opportunity to lodge a fresh petition for consideration by the committee at that time, depending on the Government’s decision.

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.