Seòmar agus comataidhean

The petitioner has said that, on some points, he was

“satisfied with the answers given”

by the minister. The minister has taken an interest in the matter, all of which is to be welcomed. I think that the petition has probably gone as far as it should, and I agree that a ministerial statement would be of use. I particularly support the recommendation that, in closing the petition, we write to the minister to draw attention to the importance of financial support being available under future agri-environment and climate schemes in order to maintain and increase predator control.

I should say that I have known Alex Hogg as a friend for 25 years, and there are very few people in Scotland who know more about managing wildlife and the countryside than he and many of his colleagues in the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, of which I am a member. Indeed, I hope that I have paid my subscription.

The serious point is that Alex Hogg has made the case for funding very well. He says that, over the several decades during which he has worked, there has been a

“change in balance between predator and prey”.

Now, the predator has the whip hand, the prey is often unprotected, and there is not much that can be done about it. That results in carnage in the countryside, with the loss of livestock, particularly lambs, from foxes and other predators. It is essential that they are properly controlled. Mr Hogg concludes with the point that, if there is a specific strand in the new agri-environment schemes, that would help not only to control predators, which cause enormous damage, worry and stress to farmers, crofters and land managers, but to protect some of the species that are under threat, too. He makes that point in his submission.

The evidence that we have had from the Scottish Tourism Alliance, which you helpfully read out to us, deputy convener, should be pursued—namely, the recommendation that the Scottish Government should have power to challenge a local government decision. We need to explore that further.

The petitioner’s previous comments state that he was “fobbed off” with various excuses, and there has not really been any answer to that. On one occasion, he was told that he could not use the land because someone else might want it—for goodness’ sake, what sort of an excuse is that? I know that the Scottish Tourism Alliance represents a huge range of tourism bodies, so its voice is significant. The fact that it has chosen to respond with that specific suggestion makes me feel that we should pursue the matter further rather than close the petition at this juncture, to be fair to the petitioner. It may be that the Scottish Government will refuse to do that—I would not be surprised if it were to do so—but we should at least ask it.

Thank you. It would be very helpful, convener, if Dr Cook would follow that up with a letter setting out what the protocols say—just for our information, on a sort of factual, evidential basis.

I am talking about the public. I understand about the professionals.

I have one further question for Dr Cook, if I may. I do not mean to neglect the other witnesses, but the question relates to NHS 24. Many people’s experience of NHS 24 is that it is not quick. It can be extremely slow, and there are practical reasons for that. People are often told that they will get a call back from a GP, for example, and that can take quite a long time. I am not really making a criticism, Dr Cook, but I am genuinely curious. What role does NHS 24 have in relation to strokes? Given the risk of very quick death, surely NHS 24 is really not the applicable service for strokes.

In the triaging that goes on in the first interview, how do staff who are dealing with those cases take account of the BE part?

I want to follow up on what Dr Cook said about making the distinction and FAST not being a measure to exclude people but to include people. I understand the distinction, but the two issues of balance and the loss of fully functioning eyesight—balance and eyes—are not included in FAST, so, as far as the public is concerned, it is exclusive. We are using an information and awareness campaign that does not include two of the factors that, in the case of the individual who tragically lost his life, appear to have been the symptoms that were detectable.

I am playing devil’s advocate a little bit but surely, as far as the general public is concerned, FAST is exclusive, not inclusive, by definition.

Thank you all for your responses. I understand that the issue is complex and multifaceted, and that the role of education is vital. A and E facilities not being available after 5 o’clock, where that occurs, is an obvious and very serious failing, and a gap in the service. I do not gainsay any of that: I accept it all. The petition is concerned with one aspect, and one aspect alone, although I am sure that the petitioner would welcome a much improved service in all those respects.

However, I go back to this question: given that what is involved is a potentially life-threatening condition, and one that the petitioner’s family lost their father to, does that not, when it comes to determining whether a pilot should be carried out, tend to push the balance towards conducting a proper test, as Mr Watson has said, with a set of pre-arranged and fixed criteria governing both the role of the Ambulance Service and the consultants and other clinicians involved? Surely, if a health board is willing to do that, it would be beneficial.

If, as the consistent evidence that we have heard from all four of you suggests, that does not work, then it does not work, but there seems to be a very strong presumption that people are not quite smart enough to be able to deal with complex matters. That could be interpreted as being somewhat dismissive—or a word that is even stronger than that, to be frank. After all, we are talking about a life-threatening condition. Some people, as Mr Watson said in his opening answer, lose their lives as a result of not coming under the FAST criteria.

Is the idea not worth trying? If it does not work, you will at least have tried it, and you will have a better cohort and evidence base on which to proceed as you focus largely on all the other issues that you have fairly and reasonably brought to our attention.

I am persuaded by what both of our visiting MSP colleagues say. I profoundly believe that the current system is inherently flawed, as the petitioners have maintained throughout the lengthy sequence of correspondence that I have read in preparation for this meeting.

We have a lot to learn from the Romans, including the first principle of natural justice: nemo iudex in causa sua—which means that no one can be a judge in their own cause.

The current basis of complaints in the health world and in education—for example, the GTC, which has been mentioned—is that the organisations deal with complaints against their employees, but it seems to me that their first instinct is usually to defend the system—the employee—against the complainant. It is almost a genuflection, and I have seen it time and again for 25 years.

I am grateful to the petitioners, because they have highlighted the existence of an inherent flaw. Child safeguarding is probably the most sensitive and important area that we could possibly conceive of, as both of our colleagues have said.

I find the cost argument to be utterly unconvincing. The petitioners have pointed out that the cost of the child abuse inquiry is likely to be £300 million. It seems to me that, in the future, we should try to tackle the cost of the existing system rather than worry about the cost of a national whistleblower’s office that will be minuscule in comparison with the cost of the damage that has resulted.

I strongly support the petition and I think that we should write to the minister. If colleagues are similarly minded, I feel that we have a sufficient evidential basis, particularly given the lengthy exchange that has taken place between the minister and the petitioners. There is no point in my rehashing it, but it is full of cogent relevant facts and material that the minister has not addressed in any way. Some of the very modest, minor work that the minister says is going on, such as making inquiries about what is happening at the moment, should have been done long ago, when the petition was first lodged. It is a bit late now.

There needs to be a whistleblower. We should not shilly-shally or dither and swither around but should instead urge the Government to get on with it and make that recommendation to the committee. Given that numerous members have registered their concerns about the issue, our impression is that there is widespread concern across the parties. Therefore we should get off the fence and recommend that there be a whistleblower. That should be considered in conjunction with the petitioners and others who can provide useful information about the whistleblower’s role, their remit and how the process would operate. As I have said, the costs would be very modest in comparison with the existing costs.

I was impressed by Mr Bibby and Mr MacGregor’s arguments, and by the range of support across political parties for ensuring that, in Scotland, we go back to the golden age that we enjoyed in our boyhood, convener—I thought that I had pulled rank in you in terms of age, but hey ho. As one moves gently towards the other end of life, nearer the crematorium stage, and as one suffers more from things such as arthritis and so on, and cannot do load-bearing exercise, an awful lot of people whose exercise consists of swimming cannot do other forms. The issue is not only about children and life-saving; it is beneficial in other ways.

I was also struck by Mr MacGregor’s point that all sports are beneficial if we take part in them. They are good for mental health, physical health, wellbeing, endorphins and all the rest of it. Believe it or not, I used to be quite active on that front myself. However, he made the salient point that swimming is different. It has far more benefits and a broader range of benefits than just life-saving and so on. Your comments are also entirely endorsed, convener, so I do not think that we should close the petition at all.

Moreover, towards the next election, I would not be surprised if the issue finds its way into the manifestos, certainly of the main parties. We have to make choices, and local authorities are the ones who have to make provision, but the passing of the buck by the Scottish Government to local authorities is not acceptable, really. It is just not on. You cannot pass the buck if you are in charge.

If the Government wants suggestions about saving money, I would ask why we do not have full swimming pools instead of empty cycle lanes all over the place? The Government seems to have unlimited funds to construct cycle lanes, which, as far as I can see, remain empty from dawn to dusk, not least because they are on steep hills, which nobody except Olympian cyclists can actually navigate. That is just one suggestion. I could come up with five or six others quite easily, but I will spare the committee that.

Holding a round-table discussion is the very least that we can do. I wonder whether we could pause and think about what else we might do, because, unlike so many other topics that are plainly the responsibility of local authorities, such as refuse collection, which are vital functions in themselves, swimming has a far broader range of benefits. We cannot just say that it is a matter for local authorities.

I know that other members have taken an acute interest in this and we could ask for their views about who to invite to a round-table discussion so that we do not exclude anyone. Liz Smith would be one example.