Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a proposal, which is that fair notice be given to the cabinet secretary.

I have tried to consider the petition carefully. As a solicitor formerly in private practice for a quarter of a century, I dealt with quite a lot of matrimonial work and the financial settlement on divorce, which, as the minister said in her reply, is covered by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

One understands that both parties to divorce usually have very strong feelings and often feel that the division of the cake is unfair, and one can sympathise with that in certain circumstances. However, the Government has set out clearly that it is not in favour of that policy, and there is really no prospect whatsoever that it will change those principles.

I think that the 1985 act is a very good piece of legislation, and I want to make one specific point clear, which may not be immediately apparent. Under the act, the assets that fall to be divided between the parties are classified as matrimonial property, that is, property that is brought in in anticipation of marriage or property that is acquired or created during the period of the marriage, from the date of the marriage until the date of the separation or raising of the writ, if there has not been a separation.

In other words, the point is that, if you get married at, say, 50 and then divorced at 55, and you took out a pension when you were 25 and you still have that pension, then only the proportion of the pension attributable to the time period relating to the date of the marriage and the date of the separation falls to be taken into account. That is because the law recognises that there needs to be a recognition of the contributions of both parties in bringing up children and so on. If there is one breadwinner, the other spouse—usually, though not always, the female—may often have substantial childcare responsibilities.

The law is quite sophisticated. It seems to me to have stood the test of time. It seeks to be fair and, although the petitioner feels that it is unfair, I am not persuaded by her arguments. Therefore, on this occasion—I have not said this for a while—I agree with the Scottish Government.

Well, that is interesting. “Algorithms” was the word that I was unsuccessfully hunting for.

I think that we have probably pursued the issue as far as we can at this stage in the parliamentary cycle, so I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis of four factors. First, the guidance on the visibility of pedestrian crossings is set out in the UK-wide guidance on the design of pedestrian crossings. Secondly, national planning framework 4 highlights safe crossing, pedestrian priority and reduced street clutter as desirable qualities. Thirdly, the Scottish Government considers that it is for local authorities to identify streets that are in need of decluttering. Fourthly, the day-to-day enforcement of the pavement parking prohibitions, along with consideration of reporting systems, is also the responsibility of local authorities.

Taking account of those factors, I recommend that we close the petition.

Which health board were you referring to?

I am impressed by how much Mr Golden knows about rubbish.

Yes. I know that the petitioner will be disappointed but, as you said in relation to a previous petition, convener, a lot of work has been done up to this time by the clerks to get a response from the minister and the petitioner. Were there any prospect of any reform, it would be our duty to explore and examine that, but my personal view—members may take a different view—is that there is no prospect at all of the Scottish Government changing its mind. If there is a different Government in the future, the petitioner might bring the issue back, if she so wishes.

If I phone up and say that my balance and eyesight are affected, what does the triage do? You have protocols and matrices—I do not know what the right word is—that determine the response given by the NHS operatives. However, I am not sure to what extent they are qualified—excuse my ignorance, Dr Cook. If I am asked whether I feel dizzy or I have slurred speech and I say, “No, but my balance is affected and my eyesight has suffered a bit”, what would you do then?

I am sure that all the witnesses will be well aware that the petition arose because of the tragic loss of the life of Tony Bundy. The petitioner stated that, when Tony suffered a stroke, his face and arms were unaffected and his speech was not slurred, and that meant that he passed the FAST test because face, arms, speech and time were not affected. The petitioner went on to say that the family is now raising awareness of the symptoms of stroke, including the inability to stand, which is balance, cold sweats, and eyes struggling to focus. That is where the B and the E come from—balance and eyes.

The evidence that you have all given is consistent: you do not think that, from the available studies and the evidence, the alteration of the awareness campaign from FAST to BE FAST would work. Mr Watson began by stating that there is a problem. To put that problem in layperson’s terms, the current system is not identifying all of those who might have suffered a stroke, but you think that FAST is best, and if we are to depart from that, it might make things worse, not better.

I can understand that. I am not a clinician, so it is not for me to second guess anybody. However, the committee wrote to all the health boards in Scotland and the written response from NHS Ayrshire and Arran describes the work that it has already done, which is quite substantial and quite impressive. I will not read it all out because it would take too long, but it says that

“the team at NHS Ayrshire and Arran would very much welcome the opportunity to be a pilot site if this was agreed.”

I have a point that I want to try out on you, to see what you say. Studies are one thing, but a health board is willing to carry out a pilot, and the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto, has said that it is up to health boards to do that. As I understand it, she is not standing in the way of a pilot, although I am not sure that she is advocating one. Given all that, would it not be sensible to actually try it out? I do not mean to be impertinent in any way. Your evidence and knowledge come from your experience as professionals and clinicians, but a layperson might say, “For goodness’ sake, give it a try.”

Studies are one thing and, as has been pointed out, studies from the USA may be of limited efficacy because of different circumstances and the profit element, but surely it would make sense to have a pilot scheme. If it were conducted under scrupulously pre-arranged terms, it might be possible to measure the outcome and see whether it actually works.

I know that that idea was promoted by Stephen Kerr and Alexander Stewart, two other MSPs who have been supportive of the family in this case. I would like to know from all the witnesses whether they think that that might be worth trying.

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.