Seòmar agus comataidhean

What with vaccinations, boosters and lateral flow tests, the role of test and protect has to an extent disappeared from sight. I welcome test and protect prioritising higher-risk settings such as hospitals and care homes, but will the First Minister remind us all of the importance of test and protect in general, and of keeping the app active?

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it has taken to support town centres. (S6O-00551)

You have pre-empted my preamble, Presiding Officer, which was to say that that was a very comprehensive answer.

I want to move on from funding, which is welcome, and give two examples from my constituency of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale: Galashiels and Penicuik town centres. There are far too many large empty retail stores there—they have been empty for years—and it is difficult to trace the owners. Is current compulsory purchase legislation sufficient to permit a local authority to take ownership and redevelop, possibly for a mix of town-centre housing and smaller commercial outlets? That does not seem to be happening.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am delighted that the member is trolling the archives for my words of wisdom, but he will also recall that, at the time, I opposed the abolition of corroboration because not proven, corroboration, the size of jury and having a majority or a unanimous verdict are all interlinked, so it is a very complex issue.

Beyond reasonable doubt.

My contribution is quite short, but it is important that I advise members of the activities and influence of Scottish HART in campaigning to increase the distribution of defibrillators. Scottish HART, which stands for Heart At Risk Testing, was founded in 1997 by Kenneth and Wilma Gunn, who have, for some time, been my Selkirk constituents. I know that it is not among the various organisations that are listed in the motion, but it is an important little organisation.

Tragically—just like in the story that Jenni Minto recalled—on 27 May 1991, the Gunns’ son Cameron collapsed and died during a five-a-side football match. Even more cruelly, it was the night before his 20th birthday. He suffered from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, although nobody knew about that until after his death. Regrettably, other young people—often active sportsmen and women—have died in a similarly tragic fashion.

From 1997 onwards, Wilma Gunn and her husband Kenny have been fundraising; raising the organisation’s profile, even in Parliament; and campaigning not only for early testing of young athletes but for accessible defibrillators. Back then, not many people knew what a defibrillator was—I include myself in that. The profile was raised here, with debates and petitions in the early years of the Parliament, and in 2014 Wilma was deservedly awarded an MBE.

Today, we have defibrillators at many points—in trains, bus stations, airports and supermarkets, and in the Parliament and some workplaces—but Kenny and Wilma Gunn have not stopped campaigning, and they are keen for even more defibrillators to be distributed. The new ones are easy to use—you cannot hurt the patient by using them. In fact, it is better to use a defibrillator and have the patient die in front of you, as you cannot do any more harm than if you had done nothing.

I have practiced on defibrillators, in the Parliament and elsewhere, and if I can use them—because I am hopeless at it—anyone else certainly can. Those invaluable minutes on the defibrillator will mean life or death until the medics arrive. That is especially relevant in rural areas such as my constituency, where paramedics cannot simply arrive within eight minutes.

I wanted to take part in the debate to remind members of other less well-known people who have campaigned, through tragic circumstances, to try to bring defibrillators, which save so many lives, to the forefront. I congratulate Wilma and Kenny Gunn who, all these years later, are still campaigning for Scottish HART and for defibrillators.

I welcome the inquiry, which will quite rightly be extensive and in depth. I note that there are 12 heads but that, as the Deputy First Minister said in his statement, the chair is asked

“To identify lessons and implications for the future, and provide recommendations”,

and

“To provide reports”—

that word is plural—

“to the Scottish Ministers as soon as practicable.”

Am I correct to assume that the chair is being asked to identify under the specific heads which matters to report on “as soon as practicable”, so there will be interim reports rather than just a fully fledged report for the entire inquiry? That will be a matter for the chair.

I absolutely accept the necessity of people being safe. However, given the current pressures of omicron—which are understandably very distracting for people—as well as the rising cost of energy, I welcome flexibility on the deadline. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take into account the other pressures that are on households just now, quite apart from their obtaining devices and having them installed.

The Tuesday Covid statements to the Parliament are essential for the Parliament to hold the Scottish Government to account. Public engagement and compliance is key, as it has been from the start, and compliance has been very high. However, constituents tell me that they miss the regular lunch time televised Covid information updates, which were so important in the early days of the pandemic. In the fast-moving situation that has been brought about by the omicron variant, can the lunch time public information broadcasts be reinstated?