Seòmar agus comataidhean

So it is a known unknown.

Convener, what other evidence have we obtained? The petitioners have plainly expressed their view, as have a few others. However, as someone who is not unfamiliar with the M8, I am a bit unsure as to how it could be removed, which is what the petition calls for.

It occurs to me that that would have a huge impact, in a number of respects, on the flow of traffic and therefore on the conduct of business and the conveyance of emergency vehicles to and from hospitals. In general, the system of transport that we have in Scotland depends, whether we like it or not, substantially on roads. I wonder, therefore, whether we should seek evidence more widely in order to get a rounded view. I am thinking in particular of bodies such as the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, motoring organisations such as the RAC and the police and emergency services. I appreciate that there is a huge range of possibilities, some of which are relatively modest, and some that may involve complete removal of the road, shutting it at weekends or whatever.

I am struck by the fact that we do not appear to have sought that evidence—as far as I know; I am sorry if I have not picked that up from the papers by the clerks, although I have raised the matter with the clerks in correspondence. Perhaps we should cast our net a bit more widely to get a more rounded view of the proposals.

It is appropriate, and very convenient, convener.

There is, in principle, a strong argument behind what the petition calls for, but there is a more practical option that we might pursue. I appreciate that it is perhaps not absolutely what the petitioner wants, but we might want to consider asking the Scottish Government whether it believes that the rural infrastructure fund could be continued and extended. I know that the fund is a popular financial provision with both local authorities and the Scottish Government. It is fairly flexible, and I know that it has been well used in Highland to address local issues of concern in places such as the fairy pools on Skye and has enabled solutions to be found to some long-standing local community issues.

Given that experience, I wonder whether we might even encourage the Scottish Government to work with local authorities on using the fund to fill gaps in the provision of public toilets throughout the country. The scheme, as a modus operandi, seems to be practical and has been working in practice for a good few years now.

I preface my remarks by saying that I still feel as if I am serving my apprenticeship on this committee, so it may be slightly premature for me to say this. I wonder whether we are moving a bit beyond the specific ask in the petition towards a general tour-de-table discussion about the rail service in Scotland. That is perfectly interesting and valid, but to go back to what the petition says, it is very narrowly focused. I am not dismissing any of the points that have been made before the committee today, but is it not our primary role to focus pretty forensically and ruthlessly on what the petitioner has actually asked for, rather than fish every sea in the ocean? Let us stick to our own waters.

Good morning to both witnesses. I would like to ask both of you two questions. First, how important do you feel it is to embed the medication-assisted treatment—or MAT—standards in practice, especially for ensuring that individuals receive appropriate medication while in police custody? That is a point that David Strang made clearly in his opening remarks.

Thank you. I thought that that would be the answer; obviously, it is the answer that one expected.

I have one more question, which has two parts to it. First, are the witnesses aware of any data on the availability of healthcare staff to administer methadone in police custody? I ask that general question because questions have been raised by the petitioner and others about there perhaps not being sufficient, appropriately qualified medical staff to do the job of ensuring proper treatment in police custody.

Secondly, the petitioner has asserted that, in NHS Grampian, there is inappropriate prescription—as he considers it—of a drug. From memory, I think that it is dihydrocodeine. Is either of the witnesses able to comment on whether that is inappropriate, in their view? Do they have any information with regard to that?

In saying that, we will perhaps make direct inquiries to NHS Grampian to be fair to it, and put that point to it, as is right and proper.

I am most grateful to Dr Hunter for that very useful clarification. We can pursue that further.

I go back to the first question, about the availability of healthcare staff. As neither of you is able to give us information about that, can you suggest from whom we may be able to obtain information? If the answer is that there is nobody from whom we can obtain such information because records are not properly kept, does that not point to a lacuna in the system of oversight of the application of correct treatment and sufficient medical personnel available to deliver it for those people in police custody who require it?

Yes. I agree with Mr Stewart.

The petitioners are probably not alone in suffering inconvenience from the illegal parking of camper vans in inappropriate places, and there is no doubt that it happens. However, the Scottish Government response might be correct in that I am not sure that the particular prescription advocated by the petitioners will necessarily solve the problem.

It also occurs to me that, as a matter of road traffic law, and perhaps criminal law in relation to illicit parking or local byelaws—I am sorry; I do not know whether you have considered that—the petitioners’ reference to aires is very helpful. I discovered when I was tourism minister that aires exist as facilities for caravans, camper vans and so on outwith settlements, with provision of services such as water and sewage facilities. They are serviced sites. They are very prevalent in France, which apparently has a network of aires, but we have not got off the mark with them here. I wonder whether, in an effort to solve the issue another way, we could ask the Scottish Government to consider promoting aires—I know that VisitScotland is keen on that—as something that would qualify automatically under the rural infrastructure fund, which again appears in our deliberations today.

I realise that that is not quite what the petitioners want, and I have some sympathy with them, because this is a big problem in the Highlands, particularly on the single-track roads that serve small communities. Illicit parking in lay-bys is another problem, particularly on the NC500 in the Highlands.

Aires would be the proper long-term solution. It would make everybody happy; holidaymakers could enjoy the countryside as they travel around in their camper vans, if that is what they choose to do, and locals could avoid being inconvenienced by that third-party pleasure.

Yes—I am happy to do that.